Not

ic e: This op in io n is su bj ect to fo rm al re vi si on be fo re pu bl ic at io n in th e At

la nt ic

an d Ma r y l a n d Rep or te rs

. Use rs ar e re qu es te d to no ti fy th e Cl er k of th e Co ur t of

an y fo rm al er ro rs so th at co rr ect io ns m ay b e m a d

e be fo re th e bo und vo lu m es go

to pr es s.

DIST RICT O F COLUMBI A COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 0- CV-7 8

B A N K O F A M E R IC A

, N.A., et al

., A P P E LLA N T S

,

v.

D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

, A P P E LLE E

.

App eal fro m

th e Su pe rio r Co ur t o f th e Dis tri ct of C ol um

bi a (CAB- 77 63 -0 8)

(Ho n. J oa n Zel do n, M ot io ns Ju dg e) * (Ho n. Fr an k B ur ge ss , Mo ti on s J ud ge ) **

(Arg ue d Oct ob er 1 9, 2 01 1 D eci de d No ve m be r 27 , 20 13 )

Av a E. Li as -Boo ker

, wit h who m Sa man th a Th omp so n , Bri an A. K a h n , Adr ie nn e J. La wr en ce , an d Mic he ll e N. Li pk ow it z , were on th e br ie f, fo r ap pe ll an ts

.

St ac y L. And er

so n , Ass is ta nt Att or ne y Ge n e r a l

, wit h who m Ir vi n B. Na th an , Acti ng Att or ne y Gen eral fo r th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m bi a at th e ti m e th e br ie f was fil ed

, To dd S. Ki m , S ol ic it or Gen eral , a nd Don na M. Mu ra sk y , De pu ty So l i c i to r Gen eral

,

were o n t he bri ef, fo r ap pe ll ee.

Be fo re B L A C KB U R

N E -R IGSB Y an d T H O M P S O N
, Ass oc iat e Ju dge s , an d W

A G N ER
, Se ni or Ju dg e

.

Ju dg e Zel do n d eci de d t he Mo ti on to Co m pe l Arb it rat io n. *

Ju dg e Bu rg es s d eci de d t he Mo ti on to Sta y

. **2

W A G N E R
, Se ni or Ju dg e : App el la nt s , B a n k of Am eri ca, N.A. an d Ban k of

Am eri ca Co rp or at io n (h erei na fte r co ll ect iv el y refe rred to as Ban k of Am eri ca or th e

Ban k) , app eal fro m

an or de r of th e tri al co ur t den y in g th e Ban k’s m ot io n to co m pe l

a r b i t r a ti on un de r th e Fed eral Arb it rat io n Act (FAA) of th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m bi a’s

cl ai m s fo r da m ag es fo r lo ss es in cu rred as th e res ul t of a pr ot ract ed frau du le nt sc he m e

pe rp et rat ed by th e Dis tri ct ’ s em plo y ees an d al le ge dl y faci li ta te d by Ban k of Am eri ca.

Ban k of Am eri ca arg ue s th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in it s r u li ng be cau se al l of th e

Dis tri ct ’s cl ai m s are wit hi n th e sc op e of a co nt r a c tu al ag reem en t th at req ui res

arb it rat io n in th e st at e of Nor th Caro li na

. The Dis tri ct ’s po si ti on is th at th ere was no

va li d arb it rat io n ag reem en t, or al te rn at iv el y , it s cl ai m s do no t fal l wit hi n th e sc op e of

an y ag reem en t be twee n th e pa rti es

. W e affi rm th e de ci si on of th e tri al co ur t ho ld in g

th at th e pa rti es ha d no va li d ag reem en t to arb it rat e th ei r di sp ut e in Nor th Caro li na or

el s e w h e r e an d ret ai ni ng juri sd ic ti on of th e Dis tri ct ’s cl ai m un de r th e Frau d Cl ai m s

Act. W e rem an d th e cas e to th e tri al co ur t fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h th is

op in io n a s i t re la te s t o t he rem ai ni ng co un ts of t he Dis tri ct ’s am en de d c om pl ai nt

.

I. Pro cedu ra l Ba ck gr ou nd

Thi s act io n ari se s ou t of a frau du le nt sc he m e by a fo rm e r man ag er in th e3

Dis tri ct ’s Rea l Pro pe rty Tax Adm in is tra ti on Adju st m en t Uni t in it s Offi ce of Tax an d

Rev en ue

. The Dis tri ct fil ed a co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t Ban k of Am eri ca, W al te r R. Jo ne s,

Jr

., Harri et te W al te rs , J a yr e c e Elai ne Turn bu ll

, an d un kn own Ja ne an d Jo hn Doe s

al le gi ng th at th ey pa rti ci pa te d in a co ns pi racy th at ut il iz ed a Co nt ro ll ed Dis bu rs em en t

Acco un t ( C D A o r CD Acco un t) th at th e Dis tri ct m ai nt ai ne d wit h Ban k of Am eri ca

to pr oc es s frau du le nt ta x refu nd ch eck s. Sp eci fic al ly, th e Dis t r i c t al le ge d th at

W al te rs , a fo rm er Dis tri ct em pl oyee, us ed he r kn owl ed ge o f th e Dis tri ct ’s pr op ert y

ta x re f u n d p r o c es s to pr ep are an d en su re ap pr ov al of th e frau du le nt ch eck s whi ch

were gi ve n to co -co ns pi rat or s to de po si t or cas h th ro ug h th e Ban k. Acco rd in g to th e

co m pl ai nt

, Jo ne s, an as si st an t br an ch m an ag er fo r th e Ban k, an d ot he r un kn own ba nk

pe rs on ne l faci li ta te d th e ne go ti at io n of th e frau du le nt ch eck s. As th eo rie s of li ab il it y ,

th e Dis tri ct as se rte d: (1 ) vi ol at io n of th e Uni fo rm Co m m erci a l C o de (UCC) (D.C.

Co de § 28 :3 -4 04 (2 00 1) ); (2 ) vi ol at io n of UCC § 28 :3 -4 05 ; (3 ) ne gl ig en ce; (4 ) frau d;

(5 ) br each of fid uc ia ry du ty; (6 ) co nv ers io n; (7 ) vi ol at io n of th e D.C. Fal se Cl ai m s

Act (FCA) (D.C. Co de § 2- 30 8.1 4 (2 00 6 Rep l.)) ; an d (8 ) ne gl ig en ce in t r a i n in g, 1

hi rin g an d su pe rv is in g ba nk pe rs on ne l. As rel ie f, th e Dis tri ct so ug ht rep ay m en t of al l

f u n d s l o s t to ta li ng $3 9,2 12 ,81 5.2 4. Und er th e Fal se Cl ai m s Act, it so ug ht tre bl e

da m ag es of $ 11 7,2 12 ,81 5.2 4, p en al ti es of $ 10 ,00 0 p lu s co st s an d a tt or ne y ’s fees

.

Thi s p ro vi si on ha s b een reco di fie d a t D.C. Co de § 2 -3 81 .02

. 14

Th e Ban k fil ed a “ Mo ti on to Dis m is s, or in th e Alt ern at iv e, St ay Bas e d o n

Fo ru m Sel ect io n an d Arb it rat io n Cl au se s,” whi ch th e tri al co ur t trea te d as a Mo ti on

to Co m pe l Arb it rat io n u nd er t he Fed eral Arbi tra ti on Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et se q

. In it s

m ot io n, th e Ban k as se rte d th at th e Dis tri ct ’s cl ai m s are su bjec t to arb it rat io n pu rs ua nt

to a cl au se in it s Treas ur y Serv ic e Bo ok le t (TSB) r e q u i r i n g arb it rat io n of di sp ut es

rel at ed to th e acco un t or ba nk se rv ic es an d a fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se in it s D e p o s it

Agr eem en t (DA) req ui rin g an y pr oc eed in g reg ard in g th e CD Acco un t to be br ou gh t

in Nor th Caro li na

. Co nc lu di ng th at th e pa rti es ’ vo lu m in ou s fil in gs di d no t m ak e cl ear

wha t do cu m en ts co nt ro ll ed th e di sp ut e, th e tri al co ur t he ld an ev id en ti ary he ari ng in

or de r to as cert ai n whe th e r t he y ha d an ag reem en t to arb it rat e in Nor th Caro li na

.

Fo ll owi ng co m

pl et io n of th e he ari ng pr oc eed in gs , t he tri al co ur t de ni ed th e Ban k’s

m ot io n b y

writ te n o rd er i n whi ch it fo un d th at th e pa rti es ’ 20 05 co nt ract pro vi si on s

su pe rs ed ed an y di sp ut e res ol ut io n or fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se s pr ev io us ly ag reed up on

an d th at th e si gn at or ie s to an y do cu m en ts ex ecu te d su bs eq ue nt ly la ck ed au th or it y to

bi nd th e Dis tri ct to arb it rat io n i n No rth Caro li na

. The co ur t reta in ed juri sd ic ti on of

th e Fal se Cl ai m s Act co un t ex pl ai ni ng th at th e FCA is a pa rt of th e Pro cu rem en t

Prac ti ces Act of 19 85 (PPA), whi ch th e pa rti es in co rp or at ed in t o t he ir 20 05

ag reem en t, an d th at act io ns th ereu nd er are wit hi n th e Su pe rio r Co ur t’s ex cl us iv e5

ju ris di ct io n un de r D.C. Co de § 2- 30 1 et se q. The co ur t di sm is se d th e D i s t r i c t ’s 2

rem ai ni ng cl ai m s, ho ld in g th at th ey are wi th in th e ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on of th e

Dis tri ct ’s own co nt ract in g o ffi cer a nd th e Co nt ract App eal s B oa rd (CAB).

The Ban k fil ed a m ot io n to al te r or am en d th e tri al co ur t’s or de r an d to cert ify

cert ai n ru li ng s to th is co ur t fo r rev ie w. The Ban k no te d th i s a p p e al be fo re th e tri al

co ur t (J

. Zeld on ) de ni ed th e m ot io n to al te r or am en d. The tri a l co ur t (J

. Bu rg es s)

gr an te d th e Ban k’s m ot io n to st ay th e pr oc eed in gs on th e FCA clai m an d st ay ed th e

di sm is s al of th e Dis tri ct ’s rem ai ni ng co un ts

. Howev er, th e or de r pe rm it te d th e

Dis tri ct to pu rs ue it s co nt ract cla im s b efo re t he Dis tri ct ’s Con tra ct in g Off ic er.

The Ban k fil ed in th is co ur t a Mo ti on to St ay Pro ceed in gs , or in th e Alt ern at iv e

Enjo in th e Dis tri ct Pen di ng App eal

, i n w h i c h i t req ue st ed a st ay or in jun ct io n to

pr ev en t th e Dis tri ct fro m in it ia ti ng pr oc eed in gs be fo re a co nt ract in g of fic er durin g th e

pe nd en cy of th is ap pe al

. Thi s co ur t de ni ed th at m ot io n an d or de red th e Ban k to sh ow

cau se why th e ap pe al sh ou ld no t be di sm is se d fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on as ha vi ng be en

ta ke n fro m a no n- fin al or de r, ci ti ng In re Ca lo mir is

, 89 4 A.2d 40 8, 40 8 (D.C. 20 06 ),

The Pro cu rem en t Prac ti ces Refo rm Act of 20 10 whi ch cam e in to effe ct Apr il 2
8, 20 11

, rep eal ed th es e pr ov is io ns

. Se e D.C. Law 18 -3 71

, § 12 01 (a), 5 8 D.C. Re g. 11 85 (Apr . 8, 2 01 1)

.6

Her cu le s & Co

. v. Belt wa y Ca rp et Se rv

., In c. , 59 2 A.2d 10 69

, 10 71 n.6 (D.C. 19 91 ),

a n d D

. C

. Co de § 11 -7 21 (d ) (2 00 1)

. W it ho ut res ol vi ng th e juri sd ic ti on al qu es ti o n ,

th is co ur t is su ed an or de r va cat in g th e Sh ow Cau se or de r, st at in g th at “ [t]he Su pr em e

Co ur t’s de ci si on in And er se n LLP v. Ca rl is le

, 12 9 S. Ct

. 18 96 (2 00 9) m ay [a]ffect th e

ap pl ic ab il it y of Ca lo mir is , 8 94 A.2d at 41 0.” In t ha t o rd er, t hi s co ur t s et a br ie fin g

sc he du le an d req ue st ed th e pa rti es to di sc us s th e op in io n in Ca rl is le in th ei r br ie fs

.

Fo r th e reas on s se t fo rth in pa rt III A., in fr a , we c o n c l u d e t h a t th is co ur t ha s

juri sd ic ti on of t he ap pe al

.

II . Factu al Ba ck gr ou nd a nd Tr ia l Co urt’ s Dec is io n

A. Fact ua l S

umma ry

Befo re ad dr es si ng th e is su es , we ou tl in e in so m e de ta il th e fact ua l ba ck gr ou nd

es se nt ia l to an un de rs ta nd in g of th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts an d ou r di sp os it io n. At le as t

si nc e th e 19 90 s, th e Dis tri ct ha s m ai nt ai ne d a Co nt ro ll ed Dis bu rs em en t Acco un t wit h

Ban k o f Am eri ca o r it s p red eces so rs

. In Ju ly 199 9, af te r Ban k o f Am eri ca m erg ed 3

“ A CDA is a sp eci al iz ed bu si ne ss se rv ic e fo r de po si t acco un ts th ro ug h whi ch 3

th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m

bi a is no ti fie d, at a sp eci fic ti m e each bu si ne ss da y , of th e (co nt in ue d...)7

wit h it s m os t rece nt pr ed eces so r, Nati on s Ban k, th e acco un t was m ai nt ai ne d in Nor th

Caro li na

. On Ja nu ary 6, 20 00

, Vale rie Hol t, th en Ch ie f Fi na nc ia l Offi cer (CFO) fo r

th e Dis tri ct

, ex ecu te d a “ Cert ifi ed Co py of Co rp or at e Res ol ut io ns — Ope ni ng an d

Main ta in in g Dep os it Acco un ts an d Serv ic es ,” whi ch de si gn at ed th e CFO, th e Dep ut y

CFO/ Treas ur er, an d th e Ass oc ia te Treas ur er as pe rs on s au th or iz ed “t o ex ecu te an d

si gn an y ap pl ic at io n, de po si t ag reem en t, si gn at ur e card an d an y ot he r do cu m en ta ti on

req ui red by t h e Ban k to op en sa id acco un ts .” Tha t sa m e da y , CFO Hol t si gn ed a 4

si gn at ur e card fo r th e CDA an d ve rif ie d th e si gn at ur es of th ree ot he rs to act un de r th e

(...co nt in ue d) 3

nu m be r an d am ou nt of al l Dist ric t-i ss ue d c he ck s t ha t wi ll be pr es en te d for paym en t
th at da y

. . . . The se rv ic e al lo ws the Dis tri ct to tra ns fer to it s CDA th e ex act am ou nt
of m on ey ne ces sa ry to co ve r th e c h e c k s p res en te d an d to al lo w id le fu nd s to be

in ve st ed els ewh ere.”

The Co rp or at e Res ol ut io n al so au th or iz ed th e na m ed i n d i v i d u al s to do th e 4

fo ll owi ng :

to en te r an y ag reem en ts wit h th e Ban k fo r th e pr ov is io n by

th e Ban k of va rio us Treas ur y Man ag em en t se rv ic es to [th e Dis tri ct of C o l u mbia ] as su ch of fic er or em

pl oyee m ay de te rm in e, in hi s or he r so le di sc ret io n, an d to si gn an y an d

a l l do cu m en ts an d ta ke al l act io ns req ui red by th e Ba n k

rel at iv e to su ch Treas ur y Man ag em en t se rv ic es

. . . an d th at

an y su ch Treas ur y Man ag em en t ag reem en t(s ) sh al l rem ai n i n f ul l fo rce an d effe ct un ti l writ te n no ti ce to te rm in a t e gi ve n in acco rd an ce wit h th e te rm s of an y su ch ag reem en t
sh al l h av e b een rece iv ed by the ba nk

. . . .8

Co rp or at e Res ol ut io n. The si gn at ur e card st at es th at by si gn in g, th e si gn at or y ag rees 5

th at th e acco un t is to be go ve rn ed by th e te rm s an d co nd it io ns se t fo rth in th e Ban k’s

Dep os it an d Dis cl os ur es Agr eem en t (D e p o si t Agr eem en t), in cl ud in g an y

am en dm en ts

. The tri al co ur t fo un d th at al l rel ev an t Dep os i t A g r e e ment s sp eci fy

Nor th Caro li na as th e lo cat io n fo r res ol ut io n of di sp ut es an d gi ve th e Ban k th e rig ht

un il at eral ly t o a mend it s own Dep os it Agr eem en t. Acco rd in g to ev id en ce at th e

he ari ng , co m

pl et io n of a si gn at ur e card was req ui red to ad d si gn at or ie s to th e acco un t.

Bet ween 20 00 an d N o v e mb er 13

, 20 05

, a nu m be r of Dis tri ct of

fic ia ls si gn ed

si gn at ur e card s to ad d or rem ov e na m es fro m th e acco un t. The se in cl ud ed CFO Dr.

N a t w a r Gan dh i, su cces so r to CFO Hol t, Ass oc ia te Treas ur er Lasa na Mac k, a n d

In te rim Ass oc ia te Treas ur er Al ci nd or Ro si er. One of th e si gn at ur e card s si gn ed by

Dr. Gan dh i st at ed th at by si gn in g, he “ ag ree[ d]

. . . [t]o be go ve rn ed by th e te rm s an d

co nd it io ns ” se t fo rth in th e Dep os it Agr eem en t. Dr. Gan dh i

, Mr. Mac k, an d Mr.

Ro si er te st ifi ed th at th ey si gn ed si gn at ur e card s on ly to op en an acco un t or to ad d or

rem ov e si gn at or ie s.

On Sep te m

be r 25 , 2 00 0, Acti ng Dep ut y CFO/ Treas ur er, J oh n Ro bi ns on , a nd

In ad di ti on th e CFO Hol t, Dr. W il li am Hall

, Dep ut y CFO an d Treas ur er, an d 5

two Ass oc ia te Treas ur ers were id en ti f i ed as pe rs on s au th or iz ed to act un de r th e Co rp or at e Res ol ut io n.9

In te rim Ass oc ia te Treas ur er an d Ban k Man ag er, Al c i n d o r Ro si er, ex ecu te d an

“ Aut ho riz at io n an d Agr eem en t fo r Treas ur y Serv ic es ” (Au th or iz at io n) ag reei ng to be

bo un d by th e Treas ur y Bo ok le t. The tri al co ur t fo un d th at th e 20 00 Co rp or at e

Res ol ut io n au th or iz ed Ro si er an d Ro bi ns on to en te r an ag reem en t fo r tr e a s ur y

se rv ic es

. On Sep te m

be r 25

, 20 00

, Ass oc ia te Treas ur er Lasa na Mac k si gn ed a

cert ifi cat io n at te st in g to th e au th en ti ci ty of th e si gn at ur es of Ro si er an d Ro bi ns on an d

to hi s own au th or it y to ex ecu te th e cert ifi cat io n. The cert ifi cat io n fo rm s t a t e s th at

“ [i]f th e cl ie n t i s a go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty, th e en ti ty’ s co un se l m us t si gn th is

Cert ifi cat io n.” Mr. Mac k was no t th e Dis tri ct ’s co un se l or a la wy er. A cl au se in th e

refe ren ced Treas ur y Bo ok le t pr ov id es fo r se rv ic es de sc rib ed th erei n to be arb it rat ed

“ in acco rd an ce wit h th e Uni t e d St at es Arb it rat io n Act

. . . un de r th e Co m m erci al

Arb it rat io n Ru le s of th e Am eri can Arb it rat io n Ass oc ia ti on ” (AAA Ru le s)

. The tri al

co u r t f o u n d th at al th ou gh th e Aut ho riz at io n st at es “ in sm al l pr in t” th at th e Cl ie nt

rece iv ed a co py of th e Aut ho riz at io n an d Agr eem en t fo r Treas ur y Serv ic es , th ere was

no ev id en ce th at th e Bo ok le t was pr ov id ed to Ro bi ns on an d Ro si er whe n th ey si gn ed

si gn at ur e car ds

.

In 20 02

, th e Offi ce of Co nt ract in g an d Pro cu rem en t fo r th e Offi ce of th e Ch ie f

Fi na nc ia l Offi cer is su ed a req ue st fo r pr op os al s (RFP ) fo r Co nt ro ll ed Dis bu rs em en t10

Acco un t Serv ic es

. The RFP req ui red bi dd ers to in cl ud e in th ei r pr op os al s Para gr ap h

8, “ Dis pu te Res ol ut io n,” whi ch pro vi de s:

[i]f a di sp ut e ari se s un de r or rel at es to th e co nt ract

, a cl ai m by th e C o n t r a ct or sh al l be m ad e in writ in g an d su bm it te d

to th e Co nt ract in g Off

ic er for a writ te n dec is io n. A cl ai m b y th e Dis tri ct ag ai ns t th e Co nt ract or sh al l be su bjec t t o writ te n d eci si on by the Co nt ract in g Off ic er. [ 6 ]

The RF P st at ed th at th e Co nt ract in g Offi cer was “ th e on ly of fic ia l au th or iz ed to

co nt ract ua ll y bi nd th e Dis tri ct ” an d th at th e Co nt ract Adm in is tra to r ha d “ th e

res po ns ib il it y of en su rin g th at the w or k co nf or m s to the requ ire m en ts of th e co nt ract .”

The RFP al so req ui red th at th e Pro cu rem en t Prac ti ces Act of 19 85 (PPA) (D.C. Co de

§ 2 -3 01 .01 et

seq

. (20 01 )) (PP A) be in co rp or at ed by referen ce i nt o t he co nt ract

.

The RF P d efi ne s “ cl ai m ” as 6

a writ te n de m an d or writ te n as se rti on by on e of th e

co nt ract in g pa rti es se ek in g, as a mat te r of rig ht

, th e

pa y m en t of m on ey in a su m cert ai n, th e a dju st m en t or in te rp ret at io n o f co nt ract te rm s, or ot he r rel ie f ari si ng

un de r or rel at ed to th e co nt ract

. A cl ai m ari si ng un de r a

co nt ract

, un li ke a cl ai m rel at in g to th at co nt ract

, is a cl ai m th at can be res ol v e d un de r a co nt ract cl au se th at pr ov id es fo r th e rel ie f so ug ht by the Cla im an t.11

Afte r a pr e-b id co nf

eren ce at te nd ed by rep res en t a ti ve s fro m se ve ral ba nk s,

Ban k of Am eri ca su bm it te d a Tech ni cal Pro po sa l an d Co s t P r o po sa l fo r th e CDA

co nt ract

. The Ban k’s Co st P r o p o s a l in cl ud ed th e req ui red cl au se s de sc rib ed in th e

RFP. The Ban k’s Tech ni cal Pro po sa l in cl ud ed a Tab le of Co nt en ts th at refe ren ced

an Agre em en ts /Do cu m en ta ti on sec ti on li st in g t he fol lo win g d oc um en ts : (1 ) Term s

an d Co nd it io ns fo r Treas ur y Serv ic es ; (2 ) Si gn at ur e Ca rd & Res ol ut io n; (3 ) W ire

Tran sf er Fo rm ; (4 ) Aut om at ed In ve st m en t Serv ic e Agr eem en t; (5 ) Ban k of Am eri ca

Dire ct Pro fil e; an d (6 ) Elec tro ni c Pay Pro fi l e

. I t di d no t in cl ud e a co py of th e

Treas ur y Serv ic es Te r ms a n d Co nd it io ns bo ok le t. Fo ll owi ng a pa ge en ti tl ed

“ Agr eem en ts /Do cu m en ta ti on ,” th ere were se ve ral bl an k fo rm s, i n cl ud in g

Aut ho riz at io n a nd Agre em en t fo r Treas ur y Serv ic es , Au th or iz at io n a nd Agre em en t

Cert ifi cat io n, Treas ur y Serv ic es Dele ga ti on of Au th or it y , B us in es s Si gn at ur e Card

,

an d a res ol ut io n fo r un in co rp or at ed as so ci at io ns , whi ch

, th e Ban k ack no wled ge s, was

in cl ud ed in erro r. A rep res en ta ti ve fo r th e Ban k te st ifi ed th at he in te nd ed th at th es e

do cu m en ts be co m e a p art of th e co nt ract

. The pa rti es di d no t s ig n a co nt ract at t ha t

ti m e.

On Mar ch 31

, 20 05

, th e Offi ce of Co nt ract Pro cu rem en t is su ed an am en dm en t

to th e or ig in al 20 02 RFP an d req ue st ed th at th e ba nk s th at ha d res po nd ed pr ev io us ly12

pr ov id e th ei r Bes t an d Fi na l Offers fo r th e CDA. A Ban k of Am eri ca rep res en ta ti ve ,

Mr. Bi an ch i, te st ifi ed th at he was to ld to u p d a t e o nl y th e Ban k’s po rti on of th e

res po ns e; th eref

or e, he up da te d th e pr ic e pr op os al an d in cl u d e d th e sa m e

Agr eem en ts /Do cu m en ta ti on se ct io n th e Ban k su bm it te d pr ev io us ly. He al so te st ifi ed

th at he pr ov id ed a co py of th e Treas ur y Serv ic e Bo ok le t in a se pa rat e pa ck et wit h th e

in te nt io n th at it wou ld co ns ti tu te ad di ti on al te rm s of th e co nt ract

. Mr. Bi an ch i si gn ed

th e co nt ract on b e h a l f o f th e Ban k, an d on Nov em be r 13

, 20 05

, Ms

. Ang el a Lon g

Ji gg et s- Baz zi

, a Co nt ract Sp eci al is t, who wor ke d in th e Offi ce of th e Ch ie f Fi na nc ia l

Offi ce, si gn ed th e co nt ract

. The 20 05 co nt ract in cl ud es th e fo ll owi ng la ng u a g e :

“ [t]he in te nt of th is co nt ract is for a co nt ract or to m an ag e th e d is bu rs em en t ac co un t

in acco rd an ce wit h th e pu bl is he d Req ue st fo r Pro po sa l.” Thi s co nt ract al so co nt ai ns

a m erg e r c la us e whi ch read s: “ [t]hi s co nt ract

, in cl ud in g sp eci fic al ly in co rp or at ed

do c u men ts

, co ns ti tu te s th e to ta l an d en ti re ag reem en t of th e pa rti es

. All pr ev io us

di sc us si on s, wri ti ng s an d a gr eem en ts are m erg ed he rei n.”

Afte r ex ecu ti on of th e 20 05 co nt ract

, Dis tri ct em pl oyees si gn ed a nu m

be r of

si gn at ur e card s an d a ut ho riz at io ns to rem ov e an d a dd ne w si gn at or ie s to th e CDA.

On Mar ch 6, 20 06

, aft er be co m in g th e Dis tri ct ’s OFT Treas ur er, Mr. Mac k si gn ed an

Aut ho riz at io n an d Agr eem en t fo r Treas ur y Serv ic es th at st at es , in pa rt, th at th e si gn er13

ha s rece iv ed th e Treas ur y Serv ic es Bo ok le t an d ag rees to ad he re to it s te rm s. Mr.

Mac k tes ti fie d, ho wev er, tha t he tho ug ht he was si m pl y op en in g two ba nk acco un ts

an d th at he di d no t in t e n d to m od ify th e 20 05 co nt ract be twee n th e Ban k an d th e

D i s t r ic t. Tha t sa m e da y , th e Ch ie f of St aff fo r th e Offi ce of Fi na nc e an d Treas ur y,

Ulysse s Glen

, Jr

., si gn ed a fo rm cert ifyin g th at Mr. Mac k’s si gn at ur e was th e “ tru e

si gn at ur e of a pe rs on au th or iz ed to ex ecu t e t he fo rm on be ha lf of th e Cl ie nt .” Thi s

cert ifi cat io n fo rm al so st at es th at fo r a go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty, it s “ co un se l, or an y ot he r

in di vi du al as pe rm it te d by th e en ti ty’ s org an iz at io na l do cu m en ts ” sh ou ld si gn

. The

tri al co ur t fo un d th at Mr. Glen was no t a la wy er an d th at no ev id en ce was in tro du ced

to de m on st rat e h is au th or it y to si gn th e d oc um en t o n b eh al f of th e Dis tri ct

.

On Apr il 17

, 20 06

, Mr. Mac k si gn ed a si gn at ur e card na m in g hi m se lf an d two

ot he rs as au th or iz ed si gn at or ie s fo r va rio us acco un ts wit h t h e B an k, in cl ud in g th e

CDA. Th i s si gn at ur e card st at ed th at th e si gn er was acce pt in g th e “ Aut ho riz at io n”

in th e fi rs t p art of t he do cu m en t t ha t s ta te d “ [t]he de po si t ag reem en t we gi ve y ou is

pa rt of y ou r ag reem en t wit h us reg ard in g us e of y ou r acco un t an d te ll s y ou th e cu rren t

te rm s of o u r d e p o s it acco un ts .” Mr. Mac k al so te st ifi ed th at he di d no t in te nd to

m od ify th e pa rti es ’ co nt ract by si gn in g th e si gn at ur e card s. The Dis tri ct ex erci se d it s

op ti on to ex te nd th e 20 05 co nt ract fo r on e-year pe rio ds in Octo be r 20 06

, Nov em be r14

20 07 , and Nov em

be r 20 08

.

B. The Tri al

Co ur t’s Rul in g

The tri al co ur t fo un d th at th e pa rti es ’ 20 05 writ te n co nt ract go ve rn in g di sp ut e

res ol ut io n an d au th or it y to m od ify th e co nt ract su pe rs ed ed “ (1 ) an y di sp ut e res ol ut io n

or fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se s th e Ban k cl ai m s was prev io us ly ag reed up on an d (2) an d

an y pr ov is io n

. . . whi ch wou ld al lo w ot he r Dis tri ct of fic ia ls to ag ree to arb it rat io n in

Nor th Caro li na (o r el se whe re).” Thu s, the co ur t cou ld no t fin d, as the Ban k urg ed

, 7

th at th e 20 06 Aut ho riz at io n an d Agr eem en t fo r Treas ur y Serv ic e si gn ed by th e

Dep ut y CFO/ Treas ur er was va li dl y ex ecu te d or th at an y si gn at ur e card s si gn ed aft er

th e 20 0 5 c o n t r a ct bo un d th e Dis tri ct to th e fo ru m se le ct io n pr ov is io n in th e 20 08

Dep os it Agr eem en t. The tri al co ur t de cl in ed to di sm is s th e cl ai m as se rte d un de r th e

Fal se Cl ai m s Act, reas on in g th at th e PPA, whi ch is in co rp or at ed in to th e 20 05

co nt ract

, m ak es th e Su pe rio r Co ur t th e ap pr op ria te fo ru m fo r cl ai m s un de r th at Act.

As an ad di ti on al le ga l ba si s fo r co nc lu di ng th at th e pa rti es ha d no ag reem en t to

arb it rat e in Nor th Caro li na , th e tri al co ur t he ld th at th e PPA wit hh el d fro m Dis tri ct

The tri al co ur t al so fo un d th at th e cl ai m s in vo lv ed in th e li ti ga ti on fal l wit hi n 7

th e sc op e of th e arb it rat io n an d fo ru m se le ct io n pr ov is io ns se t ou t in th e Treas ur y Serv ic es Bo ok le t an d Dep os it Agre em en t u po n wh ic h t he Ban k re li ed

.15

of fic ia ls th e au th or it y to ag ree to th e arb it rat io n an d fo ru m se le c t i o n cl au se s in th e

do cu m en ts rel ie d u po n b y th e Ban k.

II I. Prel imina ry Is su es

A. Jur is di ct io n

The qu es ti on of th is co ur t’s juri sd ic ti on was rai se d in it ia ll y in an or de r to sh ow

cau se why th e ap pe al sh ou ld no t be di sm is se d as ha vi ng be en ta ke n fro m a no n- fin al

or de r, whi ch ci te d Ca lo mir is

, su pr a , 89 4 A.2d at 40 8, an d Her cu le s & Co

., su pr a , 59 2

A.2d at 10 69

. Su bs eq ue nt ly, th e co ur t vaca te d t he ord er t o s ho w cau se , st at in g th at

“ th e Su pr em e co ur t’s de ci si on in And er se n LLP, su

pr a , 12 9 S. C t

. at 18 96 m ay

[a]ffect th e ap pl ic ab il it y of Ca lo mir is

, 89 4 A.2d at 41 0,” se tt in g a br ie fin g sc he du le

,

an d di rect in g th e pa rti es to di sc us s And er se n in th ei r br ie fs

. App el la nt arg u e s t h at

Ca lo mir is is no t ap pl ic ab le to th e pr es en t cas e an d th at And er se n an d ou r cas e la w

su pp or t im m ed ia te ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ov er ap pe al s fro m de ni al s of m ot io ns to

co m pe l arb it rat io n. The Dis tri ct do es no t co nt en d ot he rwis e. Nev ert he le ss , th is co ur t

m us t be sa ti sf

ie d th at it ha s juri sd ic ti on

. The refo re, we co ns id er th e juri sd ic ti o n al

qu es ti on s ra is ed by the m ot io ns pa ne l.16

The Ban k arg ue s th at th is co ur t ha s juri sd ic ti on be cau se th e ap pe al is fro m an

or de r de nyin g it s m ot io n to co m pe l arb it rat io n ba se d on a w r i t t e n a g r e em en t th at it

co nt en ds go ve rn s th e pa rti es ’ co nt ract ua l rel at io ns hi p. Ci ti ng And er se n, su pr a , 12 9

S

. C t

. at 18 96

, th e Ban k co nt en ds th at su ch or de rs ha ve be en he ld to be fin al an d

im m ed ia te ly ap pe al ab le un de r 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)( 1) (A) of th e Fed eral Arb it rat io n Act

an d D.C. Cod e § 11 -7 21 (a). In And er se n , th e Su pr em e Co ur t con si de red “ whe th er

ap pe ll at e co ur ts h a v e ju r i s di ct io n un de r § 16 (a) [o f th e FAA] to rev ie w de ni al s of

st a ys by li ti ga nt s who were no t pa rti es to th e rel ev an t arb it rat io n ag reem en t, an d

whe th er § 3 can ev er m an da te a st ay in su ch cir cu m st an ces .” And er se n , 12 9 S

. Ct

. 8

at 18 99

. The Dis tri ct Co ur t ha d de ni ed pe ti ti on ers ’ de m an d fo r arb it rat io n an d

req ue st fo r a st ay , an d th e Si xt h Ci rcu it di sm is se d th ei r in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al fo r la ck

Sect io n 16 (a)( 1) (A) of th e FAA pr ov id es th at “ [a]n ap pe al m ay b e t a k e n 8

fro m

. . . an or de r

. . . r efu si ng a st ay of an y act io n un de r Sect io n 3 of th is ti tl e.” 9 U.S.C. § 1 6 (a )(1 )(A) (2 00 6) . Sect io n 3 pro vi de s, i n p ert in en t p art :

If an y su it or pr oc eed in g be br ou gh t in an y of th e co ur ts of

th e Uni te d S t a te s up on an y is su e refe rab le to arb it rat io n

un de r an ag reem en t in writ i ng fo r su ch arb it rat io n, th e

c o u r t i n whi ch su ch su it is pe nd in g, up on be in g sa ti sf ie d

th at th e is su e in vo lv ed in su ch su it or pr oc e ed in g is

refe rab le to arb it rat io n un de r su ch an ag reem en t, sh al l on

ap pl ic at io n of on e of th e pa rti es st ay th e tri al of th e act io n

un ti l s uc h a rb it rat io n has be en ha d in acco rd an ce with th e

te rm s o f th e ag reem en t.

9 U.S.C. § 3 (2 00 6)

.17

of juri sd ic ti on

. Id

. at 19 00

. The Su pr em e Co ur t re v e r se d, ho ld in g th at th e Si xt h

Ci rcu it ha d juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e de ni al of th e § 3 st ay an d th at a no n- pa rty to th e

a r b i tra ti on ag reem en t m ay in vo ke § 3 if th e rel ev an t st at e co nt ract la w p erm it s hi m

to en fo rce it

. Id

. at 19 03

. Pert in en t to ou r juri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on , th e Su pr em e Co ur t

st at ed in And er

se n :

Ord in ari ly, co ur ts of ap pe al s ha ve juri sd ic ti on on ly ov er

“ fin al de ci si on s” of di st ric t co ur ts

. 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

. The FAA, ho wev er, m ak es an ex cep t i o n to th at fin al it y

req ui rem en t, pr ov id in g th at “ an ap pe al m ay be ta ke n fro m

. . . an or de r

. . . refu si ng a st ay of an y act io n un de r se ct io n 3 of th is ti tl e.” 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)( 1 ) ( A )

. By th at

pr ov is io n’s cl ear an d un am bi gu ou s te rm s, an y li ti ga nt who

as ks fo r a st ay un de r § 3 is en ti tl ed to an im m ed ia te ap pe al

fro m de n i a l of th at m ot io n — reg ard le ss of whe th er th e li ti ga nt is in fact eli gi bl e fo r a s ta y

. . . .

. . . Ju ris di ct io n ov er th e ap pe al

, . . . “ m us t be de te rm in ed by fo cu si ng up on th e cat eg or y of or de r ap pe al ed fro m , rat he r th an up on th e st ren gt h o f th e g ro un ds for rev ers in g th e or de r.” Beh re ns v. Pell et ie r , 51 6 U.S. 29 9, 31 1, 11 6 S.

C t

. 8 34

, 13 3 L.Ed. 2d 77 3 (1 99 6)

. The juri sd ic ti o n a l

st at ut e he re un am

bi gu ou s l y m ak es th e un de rlyin g m eri ts
irr el ev an t fo r ev en ut te r fri vo lo us ne ss of th e un de rlyin g

req ue st fo r a § 3 st ay can no t tu r n a d en ia l in to so m et hi ng

ot he r th an “ an or de r

. . . refu si ng a st ay of an y act io n un de r

se ct io n 3 . 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a).”

Id

. at 19 00 -0 1.18

In th e pr es en t cas e, th e Ban k d e man d e d arb it rat io n of th e Dis tri ct ’s cl ai m s

un de r th e FAA as pr ov id ed fo r in writ te n do cu m en ts th at it co nt en ds go ve rn th e

pa rti es ’ rel at io ns hi p. Treat in g th e Ban k’s req ue st as a m ot io n to co m pe l arb it rat io n,

th e tri al co ur t de ni ed th e mo t i o n aft er an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , co nc lu di ng th at th e

co nt ro ll in g con tra ct di d no t pro vi de fo r arb it rat io n. The tri al co ur t con cl ud ed

, in te r

al ia

, th at a s u bs eq ue nt ag reem en t su pe rs ed ed an y pr io r ag reem en t pr ov id in g fo r

arb it rat io n an d th at la te r ag reem en ts were in effe ct ua l be cau se th e si gn at or ie s to th em

la ck ed au th or it y to bi nd th e Dis tri ct

. W it h on e ex cep ti on , it al so de ni ed a st ay of al l

cl ai m s, th ereb y al lo win g th e un st ay ed cl ai m s to pr oc eed in an ot he r fo ru m ( i.e.

, be fo re

th e Co nt ract in g Off

ic er an d t he Co nt ract App eal s B oa rd .) 9

The Ban k a rg ue s t ha t, u nd er And er se n , i t is en ti tl ed to ap pe ll at e rev ie w f ro m

th e d en ia l o f it s m ot io n t o c om pe l ar bi tra ti on an d fo r a s ta y

. And er se n su pp or ts th e

Ban k’s a r g u men t. Here, th e Ban k rel ie d up on a writ te n ag reem en t co nt ai ni ng a

pr ov is io n fo r arb it rat io n un de r th e FAA, al be it on e th at th e tri al co ur t fo un d, aft er an

ev id en ti ary he ari ng , ha d be en s u p e rs ed ed by su bs eq ue nt ag reem en ts

. W he th er th e

Ban k can pr ev ai l ul ti m at el y on it s arg um en t th at th e ag reem e n t c on ta in in g th e

The tri al co ur t ret ai ne d juri sd ic t i o n of on ly th e frau d cl ai m an d st ay ed th e 9

act io n a s t o t ha t cl ai m

.19

arb it rat io n pr ov i si on co nt ro ls go es to th e m eri ts of th e co nt ro ve rs y rat he r th an th e

ap pe ll at e co ur t’s juri sd ic ti on to ad jud ic a t e i t

. As th e Su pr em e Co ur t st at ed in

And er se n , juri sd ic ti on ov er th e ap pe al is de te rm in e d by th e cat eg or y of th e or de r

ap pe al ed fro m

rat he r th an th e st ren gt h o f th e g ro un ds for ov ert ur ni ng it

. And er se n,

su pr a , 12 9 U.S. at 19 00

. Thu s, a n ap pe al fro m th e de ni al of th e Ban k’s m ot io n to

co m pe l arb it rat io n an d st ay th e co ur t’s de ni al of th e m ot io n wo u l d be im m ed ia te ly

ap pe al ab le un de r th e FAA. Se e id

. at 1 90 0- 01

.

Mo reo ve r, cas e pr ece d e n ts fro m th is co ur t al so su pp or t ou r juri sd ic ti on to

rev ie w th e de ni al of th e Ban k’s m ot io n to co m pe l arb it rat io n. Thi s c ou rt ha s

ex erci se d ju r i s d i c t io n of an ap pe al fro m an or de r de nyin g a m ot io n to co m pe l

arb it rat io n, co nc lu di ng th at it is a fin al or de r, ap pe al ab le pu rs ua nt to D.C. Co de §1 1-

72 1 (a)( 1)

. Se e, e.g

. , 22 00 M St re et LLC v.

. Mac kel l

, 94 0 A.2d 14 3, 14 7 & 14 7 n.2

1 0

(D.C. 20 07 ) (ci ti ng D.C. Cod e § 16 -4 31 7 (a)(1 ) an d Uman a v . Swi nd le r & Berl in

, 1 1

D.C. Co de § 11 -7 21 (a)( 1) (co nf erri ng juri sd ic ti on up on th e D.C. Co ur t o f 1 0 App eal s fro m “ al l fin al or de rs an d jud gm en ts of th e Su pe rio r Co ur t of th e Dis tri ct of

Co lu m bi a”).

D.C. Co de § 16 -4 3 1 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) th en pr ov id ed th at fo r pu rp os es of ap pe al

, an 1 1

or de r de nyin g an ap pl ic at io n to co m pe l or st ay arb it rat io n was a fin al or de r. Thi s

se ct io n was a pa rt of th e Uni fo rm Arb it rat io n Act, D.C. Co d e § § 1 6- 43 01

, -4 31 9 (DCUAA) th at was re pe al ed effe ct iv e Ju ly 1, 20 09 . 55 DCR 18 47 (Feb . 27 , 20 08 ). (co nt in ue d...)20

66 9 A.2d 71 7, 72 3 (D.C. 20 05 )) (o th er ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Thi s co ur t ha s al so he ld th at

it ha d juri sd ic ti on o v er th e ap pe al of an in te rlo cu to ry or de r de nyin g a m ot io n to

co m pe l arb it rat io n un de r D.C. Co de § 11 -7 21 (a)( 2) (A) be cau se th e or de r

“ ‘frus tra t e [ d ] a r

b i tra ti on .’ ” Mau su ro vs ky, su pr a no te 11

, 68 7 A.2d at 20 1 n.1

(q uo ti ng Bra nd on v. Hin es , 43 9 A.2d 49 6, 50 6- 07 (D.C. 19 81 ) an d ci ti ng Uman a,

su pr a , 6 69 A.2d at 7 2 1 & n.1 1) ). In Bra nd on , we co nc lu de d th at an or de r de nyin g

a m ot io n to co nf

irm an arb it rat io n award an d req ui rin g th e pa rti es to go to tri al is an

ap pe al a b l e i n te rlo cu to ry or de r di ss ol vi ng an in jun ct io n un de r D.C. Co de § 11 -7 21

(a)( 2) (A) (1 97 3)

. Bra nd on , 43 9 A.2d at 50 0. In reac hi ng th is co nc lu si on , th is co ur t 1 2

fo un d pe rs ua si ve th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s op in io n in Ca rs on v. Am. Bra nd s, In c. , 45 0

(...co nt in ue d) 1 1

The Rev is ed Uni fo rm Act al so pr ov id es th at an ap pe al m ay be ta ke n fro m “ [a]n or de r de nyin g or gr an ti ng a m ot io n t o c o mp e l arb it rat io n.” D.C. Co de § 16 -4 42 7 (a)( 1) (2 00 1)

. Thi s co ur t ha s n o t r es ol ve d th e qu es ti on of th e va li di ty of th e ap pa ren t juri sd ic ti on al gr an t by th e Co un ci l to th is co ur t un de r th e DCU A A o r t h e Rev is ed

Uni fo rm Act. Se e Mas ur ov sk y v. Gre en , 68 7 A.2d 19 8, 20 1, n.1 (D.C. 19 96 ) (d ecl in in g to de ci de th e is su e be cau se of juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w an in te rlo cu to ry or de r

un de r D.C. Co de § 11 -7 21 (a)( 2) (A)); Uman a, su pr a , 69 9 A.2d at 72 2 (h ol di ng th at

“ th e DCUAA do es no t at te m pt t o c o n fer juri sd ic ti on up on th is co ur t un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e,” an d th eref or e, it n e e d n o t de ci de whe th er D.C. Co de §

16 -4 31 7 i s co ns is te nt wit h t he Hom e Ru le Act)

.

D.C. Co de § 11 -7 2 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) (A) co nf ers juri sd ic ti on up on th e Dis tri ct of 1 2

Co lum bia Co ur t of App eal s fro m in te rlo cu to ry or de rs of th e Su pe rio r Co ur t “ gr an ti ng,

co nt in ui ng , m od ifyin g, refu si ng , or d i s so lv in g or refu si ng to di ss ol ve or m od ify

in jun ct io ns .” Thi s s ect io n re m ai ns un ch an ge d i n t he 20 01 ed it io n o f th e Co de

.21

U.S. 79

, 90 (1 98 1)

, in te rp ret in g t he fed eral in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al s st at ut e th at ha s

la ng ua ge vi rtu al l y id en ti cal to ou r lo cal st at ut e. Bra nd on , 43 9 A.2d at 50 9. Thi s 1 3

co ur t ob se rv e d i n Br a n d on th at th e tri al co ur t’s or de r, if en te red by a fed eral co ur t,

wou ld ha ve be en “ an ap pe al ab le in te rlo cu to ry or de r ‘dissolv ing ’ an ‘ inj unc tio n’ un de r

28 U.S.C. § 12 92 (a)( 1) .” Id

. Thu s, we co nc lu de d th at “ de ni al s — bu t no t gr an ts

—

of st ay s o f li ti ga ti on pe nd in g arb it rat io n are ap pe al ab le in te rlo cu to ry or de rs , si nc e

on ly or de rs th at fru st rat e (in co nt ras t wit h faci li ta te ) arb it rat io n im po se a su ffi ci en tl y

se rio us in jury to jus ti fy

an im m ed ia te ap pe al .” Id

. at 5 06 -0 7. 1 4

It was th is co ur t’s de ci si on in Ca lo mir is

, su pr a , th at pr om

pt ed th e m ot io ns

pa ne l to rai se th e juri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on

. In Ca lo mir is

, th is co ur t di sm is se d fo r la ck

of juri sd ic ti on an ap pe al fro m an or de r de nyin g su m m ary jud gm en t to on e of fo ur

tru st ees who arg ue d th at th e tru st in st ru m en t req ui red th at di sp ut es ov er

ad m in is tra ti on of th e tru st be res ol ve d by arb it ra t i o n

. Ca lo mir is

, 89 4 A.2d at 40 8,

41 1. App el la nt arg ue d th at th is c o u r t h a d ju ris di ct io n be cau se th e or de r ap pe al ed

The fed eral ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on al st at ut e refe ren ced was 28 U.S.C. § 12 92 1 3 (a)( 1) (19 76 ).

Und er § 16 -4 42 7 of th e cu rren t Rev is ed Arb it rat io n Act, “ [a]n ap pe al m ay 1 4

be ta ke n fro m

. . . An or de r de nyin g o r g ran ti ng a m ot io n to co m pe l arb it rat io n” (it al ic s ad de d)

.22

fro m was ei th er (1 ) a fin al ap pe al ab le or de r un de r D.C. Co de § 16 -4 31 7 ( i.e.

, an or de r

de nyin g a m ot io n to c o mp e l a r bi tra ti on ), or (2 ) an ap pe al ab le in te rlo cu to ry or de r

un de r Bra nd on

, su

pr a , 43 9 A.2d at 50 7 ( i.e.

, on e th at fru st rat es th e arb it ra t i o n

pr oc es s)

. Ca lo mir is

, 89 4 A.2d at 40 8- 09

. In Ca lo mir i s , w e r eject ed th e st at ut or y

arg um en t be cau se th e arb it rat io n pr ov is io n at is su e was es ta bl is he d by W il l, an d no t

by co nt ract as req ui red fo r a p p l ic ab il it y of th e st at ut e. Id

. at 40 9- 10

. Thu s, th is 1 5

co ur t he ld in Ca lo mir is th at th e wil l th at co nt ai ne d th e arb it rat io n pr ov is io n was no t

a co nt ract wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e Dis tri ct ’s Uni fo rm Arb it rat io n Act. Id

. at 41 0.

Si m il arl y , th e co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e in te rlo cu to ry or de r ru le of Bra nd on v. Hin es

pr es up po se d th at th e pa rti es ag reed by co nt ract to arb it rat io n, and th eref or e th e ru le

was in ap pl ic ab le to th e fac ts pre se nt ed

. Ca lo mir is , 89 4 A.2 d a t 4 10

.

The co nd it io n pr eced en t fo un d l a c k i n g in Ca lo mir is is pr es en t in th is cas e.

Here, th e Ban k do es rel y up on a writ te n co nt ract co nt ai ni ng an arb it rat io n pr ov is io n.

Alt ho ug h th e tri al co ur t fo un d th at th is co nt ract was su pe rs ed ed by an ot he r ag reem en t

D.C. Co de § 16 -4 31 7 (a)( 1) pr ov i d e d t h a t fo r pu rp os es of ap pe al

, cert ai n 1 5

or de rs sh al l be de em ed fin al

, in cl ud in g “ [a]n or de r de nyin g an ap pl ic at io n to co m pe l

arb it rat io n m ad e un de r se ct io n 16 -4 30 2.” Pro ceed in gs to co m pe l or st ay arb it rat io n

un de r §1 6- 43 02 req ui red a sh owi ng of an ag reem en t as de sc rib ed in § 16 -4 30 1. (See

no te 9, su pr a ). Ca lo mir is

, su

pr a , 89 4 A.2d at 40 9. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at a W il l

es ta bl is hi ng a tr us t i s n ot a writ te n a gr eem en t o r co nt ract

. Id

.23

be twee n th e pa rti es th at do es no t pr ov id e fo r arb it rat io n, su ch a m eri ts de te rm in at io n

can no t fo recl os e ap pe ll at e rev ie w of th e tri al co ur t’s de ci si on

. Se e And er se n , su pr a ,

12 9 S . Ct. at 19 00 . Oth erwi se , th e tr ia l co ur t’s d et erm in at io n t ha t t he co nt ract wit h

th e arb it rat io n cl au se wa s s u p e rs ed ed an d do es no t go ve rn th e di sp ut e wou ld

effe ct iv el y fo recl os e ap pe ll at e rev ie w. Not hi ng in Ca lo mir is req ui res su ch a res ul t.

Fo r al l of th es e reas on s, we are sa ti sf ie d th at th is co ur t ha s juri sd ic ti on of th is ap pe al

.

Se e Ma ckel l, su

pr a , 94 0 A.2 d a t 1 47 n.2 (h ol di ng th at de ni al of a m ot io n t o c om pe l

ar b i t r a t i o n is a fin al ap pe al ab le or de r al lo win g th is co ur t to ex erci se juri sd ic ti on

pu rs ua nt to D.C. Co de § 11 -7 21 ); se e al so And er se n , su pr a , 12 9 S. Ct

. at 19 00 -0 1

(h ol di ng th at th e FAA pr ov id es fo r an im m ed ia te ap pe al of a n o rd er re fu si ng a st ay

un de r th e Act as de te rm in ed by t he cat eg or y of th e or de r ap pe al ed fro m rat he r th an

th e st ren gt h o f th e g ro un ds for rev ers al ).

B. For um Ch al le ng e

The Ban k arg ue s th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in res ol vi ng th e Dis tri ct ’s ob jecti on s

to th e ex is te nc e, sc op e o r va li di ty of th e p art ie s’ arb it rat io n ag reem en t. It c on te nd s

th at

, un de r ap pl ic ab le la w, th es e is su es are fo r th e arb it rat or ; th eref or e, th e tri al co ur t

erre d in de nyin g it s m ot io n to co m pe l arb it rat io n. The Dis tri ct res po nd s th at it s24

ch al le ng es to th e arb it rat io n cl au se it se lf an d to th e va li di ty of th e po st -2 00 5 co nt ract s

ba se d on w h e t h e r th e pe rs on la ck ed au th or it y to bi nd th e Dis tri ct are pr op erl y

res ol ve d b y

th e co ur t. 1 6

The Dis tri ct al so arg ue s th at th e Ban k is jud ic ia ll y es to pp ed fro m co nt en di ng 1 6

in th is co ur t th at it was fo r th e arb it rat or to de ci de th e va li di ty an d s c o p e o f t h e arb it rat io n ag reem en t be cau se it affi rm at iv el y as se rte d a co nt rary po si ti on in th e tri al

co ur t. The Ban k res po nd s th at th e jud ic ia l es to pp el ru le do es no t ap pl y be cau se it s

po si ti on on ap pe al is no t cl earl y in co ns is te nt wit h th e on e it m ai nt a i n e d i n t h e tri al

co ur t.

“ The do ct rin e o f jud ic ia l es to pp el pr ecl ud es a pa rty fr om tak in g o ne po si ti on

on an is su e in th e tri al co ur t an d th e op po si te po si ti on on ap pe al .” Fai rma n v. Dis tr ic t of Co lu mbi a , 9 34 A.2d 43 8, 44 3 (D.C. 20 0 7 ) ( c i t a t i on s om it te d)

. It is an eq ui ta bl e do ct rin e in te nd ed to pr ot ect th e jud ic ia l pr oc es s fro m im pr op er us e. New Hamp sh ir e

v. Mai ne , 53 2 U.S. 74 2, 75 1- 52 (2 00 1) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. F a c t o r s req ui red fo r

ap pl ic at io n of th e do ct rin e in cl ud e: ( 1 ) a cl ear in co ns is te nc y be twee n th e pa rty’ s earl ie r p os it io n an d la te r on e; (2 ) su cces s in as se rti ng th e pr io r po si ti on th ereb y

crea ti ng th e pe rcep ti on th at on e o f t h e c ou rts was m is le d; an d (3 ) th e real iz at io n of

an un fai r ad va nt ag e by on e pa rty or th e im po si ti o n o f a n u n fai r de tri m en t to th e

op po si ng pa rty. Id

. at 7 52 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

The reco rd su pp or ts th e Ban k’s cl ai m th at th e po si ti on it to ok in th e tri al co ur t
is no t cl earl y in co ns i st en t wit h th e po si ti on it as se rts on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, th e Dis tri ct

co nc ed es th at th e Ban k m ai nt ai ne d in t h e tri al co ur t, as it do es on ap pe al

, th at a ch al le ng e to th e va li di ty of th e co nt ract as a who le was fo r th e arb it rat or

. Seco nd

, th e

reco rd sh ows th at th e Ban k arg ue d th at th e arb it rat or , no t th e co ur t, ha d th e au th or it y

to de te rm in e whe th er th e Dis tri ct ’s cl ai m s are arb it rab le

. It co nt en de d th at al l th e Dis tri ct ’s cl ai m s are su bjec t to arb it rat io n an d th eref or e, th e tri al co ur t sh ou ld di sm is s th em or st ay th e act io n an d di rect th e pa rti es to pr oc eed to arb it rat io n. Fi na ll y , as th e
Ban k po in ts ou t, it was no t su cces sf ul in ad va nc in g th es e po si ti on s in th e tri al co ur t.

Fo r th es e rea so ns , we agr ee t ha t t he jud ic ia l es to pp el rul e is no t ap pl ic ab le he re.25

W e st art wit h th e ba si c pr in ci pl e th at “ arb it rat io n is si m pl y a m at te r of co nt ract

be twee n th e pa rti es ; it is a way to res ol ve th os e di sp ut es — bu t on ly t ho se di sp ut es

— th at th e pa rti es ha ve ag reed to su bm it to arb it rat io n.” Fir st Opt io ns of Ch ic ag o,

In c

. v. Ka pl an , 51 4 U.S. 93 8, 94 3 (1 99 5) ; ac co rd

, Sa nd vi k AB v. Adv en t In t’l

. Co rp

. ,

22 0 F.3 d 99

, 10 5 (3 d Ci r. 20 00 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) (n ot in g th at a pa rty can n o t be

req ui red to su bm it to arb it rat io n whe n he ha s no t ag reed to do so be cau se arb it rat io n

is a m at te r of co nt ract ). Gen eral ly, in de ci di ng whe t h e r t h e pa rti es ag reed to

arb it rat io n, th e co ur ts appl y or di na ry st at e-l aw co nt ract pr in ci pl es

. Fir st Opt io ns , 51 4

U.S. at 94 4 (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Thi s ge ne ral ru le is su bjec t to qu al i f i c a ti on whe n

de ci di ng whe th er th e pa rti es ha ve ag reed to ha ve th e ar b i t rat or de ci de th e qu es ti on

of arb it rab il it y

. Id

. W it h r e s p e c t t o th is is su e, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ad m on is he d

th at “ [c]ou rts sh ou ld no t as su m e th at th e pa rti es ag reed to arb it rat e arb it rab il it y un le ss

th ere is ‘clea[ r] an d un m is ta ka bl [e]’ ev id en ce th at th ey di d so .” Id

. (q uo ti ng AT & T

Tech no lo gi es , In c. v. Co mmun ic at io ns W or ker s , 47 5 U.S. 6 43 , 64 9 (1 98 6) ).

Ch al le ng es to arb it rat io n ag reem en ts m ay be di rect e d t o th e va li di ty of th e

arb it rat io n cl au se it se lf or to th e co nt ract as a wh o l e

. Bu c k eye Ch eck Ca sh in g v.

Ca rd eg na , 54 6 U.S. 44 0, 44 4 (2 00 6)

. Gui de d by § 4 of th e FAA, th e Su pr em e Co ur t

ha s he ld th at a ch al le ng e to th e m ak in g of th e arb it rat io n ag reem en t it se lf is pr op erl y26

res ol ve d by co ur t, whi le a c ha ll en ge to th e va li di ty o f th e co nt ract as a who le is fo r

th e arb it rat or

. Pri ma Pai nt Co rp

. v. Flo od & Co nk li n Mfg

. Co

. , 38 8 U.S. 39 5, 40 2

1 7

(1 96 7) (h ol di ng th at it is fo r th e fed eral co ur t to ad jud ic a t e a cl ai m of frau d in th e

in du cem en t of th e arb it rat io n cl au se it se lf, bu t no t cl ai m s of frau d in th e in du cem en t

of th e co nt ract as a who le ); Kee to n v. W el ls Far go Co rp

. , 98 7 A.2d 11 18

, 11 22 (D.C.

20 10 ) (h ol di ng th at a cl ai m th at th e arb it rat io n cl au se is un co ns ci on ab le di sp ut es it s

va li di ty an d is fo r th e co ur t, no t th e arb it rat or , to de ci de ). Mo re rece nt ly, in Buc keye

,

th e Su pr em e Co ur t su m

m ari zed th es e pr in ci pl es , as ex tra ct ed fro m it s pr eced en ts

, th at

are p ert in en t t o t he is su e p res en te d h ere.

Fi rs t, as a m at te r of su bs ta nt iv e fed eral arb it rat io n law, an arb it rat io n pr ov is io n is se ve rab le fro m th e rem ai nd er of th e

co nt ract

. Seco nd

, un le ss th e ch al le ng e is to th e ar bi tr at io n cl a us e it se lf

, th e is su e of th e co nt ract ’s va li di ty is

Sect io n 4 of t he FAA pro vi de s i n p ert in en t p art : 1 7

A pa rty ag gr ie ve d by th e al le ge d fai lu re, ne gl ect

, or refu sa l of an ot he r to arb it rat e un de r a writ te n ag reem en t fo r

a r b it rat io n m ay pe ti ti on an y Uni te d St at es di st ric t co ur t

. . . fo r an or de r di rect in g th at su ch arb it rat io n pr oc eed in a

m an ne r pr ov id ed fo r in su ch ag reem en t

. . . . [U]pon be in g

sa ti sf ie d th at th e m ak in g of th e ag reem en t fo r arb it rat io n or th e fai lu re to co m

pl y th erewi th is no t in is su e, th e co ur t
sh al l m ak e an or de r di re ct in g th e pa rti es to pr oc eed to
arb it rat io n in acco rd an ce wit h th e te rm s of th e

ag reem en t . . . .27

co ns id ered by th e arb it rat or in th e fir st in st an ce. Thi rd

, th is

arb it rat io n l aw ap pl ie s i n s ta te as we ll as f ed eral co ur ts

.

Buc keye

, 54 6 U.S. at 44 5- 46 (ci ti ng Pri ma Pai nt

, 38 8 U.S. at 40 3 an d 40 4 an d

So ut hl an d Co rp

. v. Kea ti ng , 46 5 U

. S

. 1 (1 98 4) ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. W it h th es e 1 8

pr in ci pl es in m in d, we re vi ew th e p art ie s’ res pe ct iv e arg um en ts

.

The Ban k as se rts th at th e arb it rat io n cl au se in th e Treas ur y B o o k l e t th at

in co rp or at es by refe ren ce th e AAA Co m m erci al Arb it rat io n Rule s req ui res th e pa rti es

to su bm it th e arb it rab il it y qu es ti on it se lf to arb it rat io n. Sp eci fic al ly, th e Ban k ci te s

Ru le R-7 th at pro vi de s:

(a) The arb it rat or sh al l ha ve th e po wer to ru le on hi s or he r

own juri sd ic ti on , in cl ud in g any ob jecti on s wi th res pe ct to
th e ex i st en ce, sc op e or va li di ty of th e arb it rat io n

ag reem en t.

(b ) The arb it rat or sh al l h a v e th e po wer to de te rm in e th e

In So ut hl an d, su

pr a , t he Su pr em e Co ur t h el d t ha t t he FAA crea te d a bo dy 1 8

of fed eral su bs ta nt iv e la w ap pl ic ab le in s t at e an d fed eral co ur ts

, an d it reject ed th e

no ti on th at

, ev en fo r st at e la w cl ai m s in st at e co ur t, st at e-l aw co ul d ba r en fo rcem en t
of § 2 of th e FAA. 46 5 U.S. at 10 -1 4. Sect io n 2 pr ov id es th at a writ te n pr ov is io n in

a co nt ract to se tt le or su bm it to a r b i t r a ti on a co nt ro ve rs y ari si ng ou t of it “ sh al l be

va li d, irr ev oc ab le

, an d en fo rcea bl e, s a v e up on su ch gr ou nd s as ex is t at la w or in

eq ui ty for t he rev oc at io n o f an y co nt ract .” 9 U.S.C. § 2.28

ex is te nc e or va li di ty of a co nt ract of whi ch an arb it rat io n cl au se fo rm s a pa rt. Su ch arb it rat io n cl au se sh al l be tre at ed

as an ag reem en t in de pe nd en t of t h e ot he r te rm s of th e

co nt ract

. A de ci si on by th e arb it rat or t h a t t h e co nt ract is

nu ll an d vo id sh al l no t fo r th at reas on al on e ren de r in va li d

th e arb it rat io n c la us e.

Co m m erci al Arb it rat io n Ru le R-7

. The Ban k arg ue s th at in co rp or at io n of th es e ru le s

in to th e c o n t r act sh ow “ cl earl y an d un m is ta ka bl y ” th at th e pa rti es in te nd ed fo r th e

arb it rat or to de ci de th e is su e of arb it rab il it y

. Se e Fi r st Opt io ns

, su

pr a , 51 4 U.S. at

94 4 (req ui rin g th at th e p a r ti es ’ in te nt io n fo r th e arb it rat or to de ci de arb it rab il it y be

sh own “ cl earl y an d un m is ta k a b l y” )

. In su pp or t of it s po si ti on , th e Ban k rel ie s

pr im ari ly up on the Su

pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Ren t-A- Cen te r, W es t, In c. v. Ja cks on ,

13 0 S. Ct

. 27 72 (2 01 0)

. Thi s cas e do es no t su pp or t th e Ban k’s po si ti on th at th e is su e

of arb it rab il it y

is for th e arb it rat or

.

The is su e in Ren t-A- Cen te r was whe th er un de r th e FAA, a di st ric t co ur t m ay

de ci de a ch al le ng e to a co nt ract as un co ns ci on ab le whe re th e ag reem en t ex pr es sl y

de le ga te d th at au th or it y to th e arb it rat or

. Ren t-A- Cen te r, su pr a , 13 0 S. Ct

. at 27 75

.

Res po nd en t Ja ck so n ha d su ed hi s fo rm er em pl oyer, R e n t -A-Ce nt er, fo r

di sc riminat io n, bu t as a co nd it io n of em pl oym en t, he ha d si gn ed an ag reem en t th at

pr ecl ud ed hi m

fro m pu rs ui ng hi s cl ai m s in co ur t. Id

. at 27 75 . The ag reem en t g av e29

th e arb it r a t o r th e ex cl us iv e au th or it y to res ol ve an y di sp ut e co nc ern in g th e

en fo rcea bi li ty of th e ag reem en t. Id

. The Dis tri ct Co ur t gr an te d R e n t

- A C e nt er’s 1 9

m ot io n to co m

pe l arb it rat io n, bu t a di vi de d pa ne l of th e Nin th Ci rcu it rev ers ed in pa rt,

ho ld in g t h a t “the th res ho ld qu es ti on of un co ns ci on ab il it y is fo r th e co ur t.” Id

.

(q uo ti n g J

a cks on v. Ren t-A- Cen te r W es t, In c. , 58 1 F.3 d 91 2, 91 7 (9 th Ci r. 20 09 )).

The Su pr em e C o ur t rev ers ed

, ho ld in g th at

, ab se nt a sp eci fi c ch al le ng e to th e

ar bi tr at io n pr ov is io n it

se lf

, th e co u r t must tre at th is de le ga ti on pr ov is io n as va li d

un de r § 2 o f t h e FAA an d le av e th e ch al le ng e to th e va li di ty of th e ag reem en t as a

who le to th e arb it rat or

. Id

. at 27 7 9

. Th u s , Ren t-A- Cen te r su gg es ts a di ffer en t 2 0

ou tc om e ha d pe ti ti on er pr es erv e d a s pe ci fic ch al le ng e to th e pr ov is io n de le ga ti ng

arb it rab il it y to th e arb it rat or

. Se e id . a t 27 79 -8 0; se e al so Pri ma Pai nt

, s up ra , 3 88

U.S. at 4 03 -0 4; Kee to n, s up ra , 98 7 A.2 d a t 1 12 2.

Unl ik e pe ti ti on er in Ren t-A- Cen te r , th e Dis tri ct di rect s on e of it s ch al le ng es to

The ag reem en t pr ov id ed th at “ [t]he Arb it rat or , an d no t an y fed eral

, st at e, or 1 9

lo cal co ur t or ag en cy , s ha ll ha ve ex cl us iv e au th or it y to res ol ve an y di sp ut e rel at in g

to th e in te rp ret at io n, ap pl ic ab il it y , en fo rcea bi li ty or fo rm a t i o n of th is Agr eem en t
in cl ud in g, bu t no t l im it ed to an y cl ai m th at al l of an y pa rt of th e Agr eem en t is vo id

or vo id ab le ” Ren t-A- Cen te r, s up ra , 13 0 S . Ct. at 27 75

.

Pet it io ne r ch al le ng ed sp eci fic al ly th e de le ga ti on pr ov is io n fo r th e fir st ti m e 2 0

in th e Su pr em e Co ur t, an d th eref or e, th e Co ur t wou ld no t co ns id er it

. Ren t-A- Cen te r,

su pr a , 13 0 S . Ct. at 27 81

.30

th e v al id it y

of t he arb it rat io n c la us e it se lf. Th e Dis tri ct arg ue s t ha t i t n ev er en te red

an ag reem en t to arb it rat e an y co nt ract -rel at ed di sp ut e be cau se no au th or iz ed ag en t fo r

th e Dis tri ct ha d au th or it y to si gn su ch an ag reem en t. Th e r e f o r e, th e Dis tri ct ’s

rel ia nc e up on Ren t-A- Cen te r is well -p la ced

. In Ren t-A- Cen te r, su pr a , th e Su pr em e

Co ur t st at ed th at whe re a pa r t y c h a l l e n ge s th e ag reem en t to arb it rat e at is su e un de r

§ 2 o f t h e F A A

, th en th e co ur t m us t de ci de th e is su e. Id

. at 27 78

. Man y ap pe ll at e

co ur ts

, in cl ud in g th is co ur t, ha ve he ld th at it is fo r th e co ur t, rat he r th an an arb it rat or ,

to de ci de th e va li di ty of th e arb it rat io n cl au se

. Se e Kee to n , su pr a , 98 7 A.2d at 11 22

(ci ti ng Her cu le s & Co

. v. Sh ama Rest

. Co rp

. , 56 6 A.2d 31

, 39 (D.C. 1 9 89 );

Na gr amp a v. Mai lC

ou ps

, In c. , 46 9 F.3 d 12 57

, 12 63 -6 4 (9 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (en ba nc ); an d

Bur de n v. Ch eck In to Ca sh of Ky. LLC

, 26 7 F.3 d 48 3, 49 1 (6 th Ci r. 20 01 )) (h ol di ng

th at it was fo r th e co ur t to de ci de th e va li di ty of an arb it rat io n cl au se it se lf in a fo rm

co nt ract .). Lik ewis e, in th e pr es en t cas e, it was fo r th e co ur t to de te rm in e whe th er th e

Dis tri ct

, th ro ug h au th or iz ed ag en ts

, e v e r a g r e e d to be bo un d by th e arb it rat io n

pr ov is io n. Unl es s th e Dis tri ct ag reed to a r b i tra ti on , it can no t be fo rced to ha ve it s

di sp ut e, in cl ud in g qu es ti on s of arb it rab il it y , he ard in a pr iv at e fo ru m

. The refo re, th e

tri al co ur t pr op erl y co ns id ered in th e fir st in st an ce th e Dis tri ct ’s ch al le ng e to th e

arb it rat io n p ro vi si on un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces pre se nt ed he re.31

Th e Ban k al so arg ue s th at

, in so far as th e Dis tri ct ’s po si ti on is t h a t t h e

ag reem en t co nt ai ni ng th e arb it rat io n pr ov is io n is su pe rs ed ed by su bs eq ue nt

ag reem en ts

, it s ch al le ng e is to th e co nt ract as a who le

, an d th eref or e, m us t be res ol ve d

by th e arb it r a t o r. It co nt en ds th at to th e ex te nt th at th e tri al co ur t rel ie d up on th e

m erg er cl au se in th e 20 05 co nt ract to in va li da te th e 20 00 Co rp or at e Res ol ut io n

au th or iz in g va rio us Dis tri ct em pl oyees to act on it s be ha lf, “ it im pe rm is si bl y op erat es

to in va li da te th e un de rlyin g Treas ur y Bo ok le t an d Dep os it Agr eem en t as a who le an d,

th eref or e, th e is su e of co nt ract va li di ty sh ou ld ha ve be e n su bm it te d to arb it rat io n.”

The Dis tri ct res po nd s th at be cau se th e va li di ty of th e po st -2 00 5 co nt ract s t h at th e

Ban k al le ge s th e Dis tri ct en te red tu rn s on whe th e r t h e pe rs on who si gn ed la ck ed

au th or it y to bi nd th e Dis tri ct , res ol ut io n b y th e co ur t i s ap pr op ria te

.

Fo r th is arg um en t, th e Ban k rel ie s up on cas e s ho ld in g th at ch al le ng es to th e

v a l i d i t y of th e co nt ract as a who le are fo r th e arb it rat or to de ci de

. The se in cl ud e:

Buc keye

, su

pr a , 54 6 U.S. at 44 9 (rea ffi rm in g th at in bo th fed eral an d st at e co ur ts

, “ a

ch al le ng e to th e va li di ty of th e co nt ract as a who le

, a n d n o t s p e ci fic al ly to th e

arb it rat io n cl au se , m

us t go to th e arb it rat or .”); Ren t-A- C e n t e r

, s u pr a , 13 0 S. Ct

. at

27 79 (req ui rin g fo r co ur t in te rv en ti on th at th e ch al le ng e be di rect ed to th e ag reem en t

to arb it rat e it se lf an d le av in g th e ch al le ng e to th e ag reem en t as a who le to th e32

arb it rat o r ) ; Pr i m a Pai nt Co rp

. , su pr a , 38 8 U.S. at 40 3- 04 (ch al le ng es to th e

arb it rat io n ag reem en t it se lf go to th e co ur t, whi le ch al le ng es to th e en ti re co nt ract of

whi ch arb it rat io n is a pa rt are fo r th e arb it rat or ); se e al so Men na v

. Plymo ut h Roc k

Ass ur an ce Co rp

. , 98 7 A.2d 45 8, 46 5 n.3 0 (D.C. 20 10 ) (n ot in g th at th e va li di ty of th e

co nt ract wit h an arb it rat io n cl au se is fo r th e arb it rat or un le ss th e ch al le ng e is di rect ed

sp eci fic al ly to th e va li di ty of th e arb it rat io n cl au se it se lf un de r th e Dis tri ct ’s Rev is ed

Uni fo rm Arb it rat io n Act)

. The Ban k co nt en ds th at res is t i n g arb it rat io n on th e 2 1

gr ou nd th at th e ag reem en t in whi ch th e arb it rat io n p ro vi si on is fou nd is su pe rs ed ed

by lat er ag reem en ts is tan ta m ou nt to co nt es ti ng th e co nt ract as wh ol e, an d t hu s, t he

pr in ci pl e fro m

th e cas es it cit es ap pl ie s t o re qu ire co ns id erat io n b y th e arb it rat or

.

The Dis tri ct ack no wled ge s th e ge ne ral pr in ci pl es ex tra ct ed fro m th es e cas es

.

Howev er, it co nt en ds th at whe re th e is su e tu rn s on whe th er th e pe rs on who si gn ed th e

co nt ract la ck ed au th or it y to co m m it th e pr in ci pa l, jud ic ia l r e v i e w is ap pr op ria te

, a

po in t refe ren ced in Buc keye

, su pr a , whi ch th e Dis tri ct ci te s. In Buc keye

, th e Su pr em e

Co ur t co ns id ered whe th er a co ur t or an arb it rat or sh ou ld de ci de th e c l ai m th at th e

co nt ract co nt ai ni ng an arb it rat io n pr ov is io n was vo id be cau se it vi ol at ed st at e le nd in g

an d co ns um er-p ro te ct io n la ws

. Buc keye

, 54 6 U.S. at 44 2. Rev ers in g th e Fl or id a

D.C. Cod e § § 1 6- 44 01 to -44 32 (Su pp . 20 09 ). 2 133

Su pr em e Co ur t, th e Co ur t he ld th at th is ch al le ng e to th e va li di ty of th e co nt ract as a

who le was fo r th e arb it rat or

. Id

. at 44 6. W hi le reaf fir m in g th is ge ne ral pr in ci pl e an d

fin di ng it to be ap pl ic ab le in Buc keye , th e Su pr em e Co ur t al so st at ed th at

[o ]ur op in io n

. . . do es no t sp eak to th e is su e de ci de d in th e

cas es

. . . whi ch ho ld th at it is fo r t h e c ou rts to de ci de

w h e t h e r th e al le ge d ob li go r ev er si gn ed th e co nt ract

, . . . [o r] whe th er th e si gn or la ck ed au th or it y to co m m it th e

a l l e g e d pr in ci pa l, Sa nd

vi k AB v. Adv en t In t’l Co rp

. , 22 0

F.3 d 99 (C.A. 3 20 00 ); Sp he re Dra ke In s. Lt d. v. All Am. [ 2 2 ]

In s. Co

. , 25 6 F .3d 58 7 (C .A. 7 2 00 1) )

. . . . [ 2 3 ]

Buc keye

, 54 6 U.S. at 44 4 n.1

. Thi s is th e es se nc e of th e Dis tri ct ’s ch al le ng e he re. It

co nt en ds th at it ne ve r ag reed to arb it rat io n be cau se it s 20 05 co nt ract di d no t pr ov id e

In Sa nd vi k

, th e Thi rd Ci rcu it affi rm ed th e Dis tri ct Co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n 2 2

to co m pe l arb it rat io n whe re th e ot he r pa rty cl ai m e d t h a t th e ag en t who si gn ed th e

ag reem en t la ck ed au th or it y to si gn it an d so no ti fie d San dv ik

. Sa nd v i k

, su pr a , 2 20

F.3 d at 10 1. The co ur t he ld th at w h e n t h e ve ry ex is te nc e of th e ag reem en t was di sp ut ed , t he di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y refu se d t o o rd er arb it rat io n un ti l it res ol ve d th e th res ho ld qu es ti on of wh et he r th e arb it rat io n a gr eem en t ex is ts

. Id

. at 1 11

.

I n S p h e r e Dra ke

, th e Sev en th Ci rcu it he ld th at whe th er a br ok er ha d 2 3

a u t h o r it y to bi nd Sp he re Drak e on rei ns ur an ce co nt ract s co nt ai ni ng an arb it rat io n

pr ov is io n was ap pr op ria te fo r res ol ut io n by th e co ur t. Sp he re Dra ke, su pr a , 25 6 F.3 d

at 59 2. The co ur t di s t i n g u i s h e d th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Pri ma Pai nt in

whi ch th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at it was fo r th e arb it rat or to res ol ve a cl ai m of frau d

in th e in du cem en t of th e co nt ract

. Id

. at 59 0. It no te d th at in Pri ma Pai nt

, th e pa rti es

act ua ll y reac he d an ag reem en t, whi le i n S p h er e Dra ke, whe th er th ere ev er was an

ag reem en t was th e is su e, an d a rb it rat io n i s co nt ract ua l. Id

. at 5 90 -9 1.34

fo r it an d no ne of it s em

pl oyees were au th or iz ed to bi nd th e Dis tri ct to arb i t r a ti on

.

Thu s, we co nc lu de th at th e t ria l co ur t was th e pr op er fo ru m in whi ch to de te rm in e

whe th er t he Dis tri ct , th ro ug h i ts du ly aut ho riz ed ag en t, ev er ag reed to arb it rat io n.

IV. Meri ts Anal ys is

A. St an da rd

of Revi ew a nd

Gene ra ll y App li ca bl e Leg al

Pri nc ip le s

The co ur t rev ie ws de no vo an or de r de nyin g a m o t i o n to co m pe l arb it rat io n.

Flee tw oo d Ent er

. In c. v. Gas ka mp , 28 0 F.3 d 10 69

, 10 73 (5 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (ci ti ng W eb b

v. In ves ta co rp

, In c. , 89 F.3 d 25 2, 25 7 (5 th Ci r. 19 96 )); se e al so Mau su ro vs ky, su

pr a

no te 11

, 68 7 A.2d at 20 2 (ci ta ti on om it te d) (rev ie win g de ni al of a m ot io n to co m pe l

arb it rat io n un de r th e de no vo st an da rd ). W he n th e tri al co ur t si ts as th e tri er of fact

,

we rev ie w it s fact ua l fin di ng s un de r th e “ cl earl y erro ne ou s” st an da rd

. Psa ro mat is v.

Eng li sh Hol di ng

s, I, L.L.C.

, 94 4 A.2d 47 2, 48 1 (D.C. 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. W e

acco rd th e tri al co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s co ns id erab le de f e r e nc e, an d we wil l no t

rev ers e th em un le ss pl ai nl y w r o n g o r w i th ou t ev id en ti ary su pp or t. Id

. (ci ti ng D.C.

Co de § 17 -3 05 (a) (2 00 1) ) (p ro vi di ng th at fo r no n- jury cas es , “ th e jud gm en t m ay no t

be s e t as id e ex cep t fo r erro rs of la w un le ss it ap pe ars th at th e jud gm en t is pl ai nl y35

wro ng or wit ho ut ev id en ce to su pp or t it .”). Thu s, whe n th e fact s le nd th em se lv es to

m or e th an on e in te rp ret at io n, th is co ur t de fers to th e tri al co ur t’s jud gm en t

. Dav is v.

Uni te d St at es , 56 4 A.2d 31

, 35 (D.C. 19 89 ) (en ba nc ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Thi s co ur t

rev ie ws t he tri al co ur t’s l eg al co nc lu si on s de no vo

. Ch ib s v. Fis he r , 9 60 A.2d 58 8,

58 9 (D.C . 20 08 ) (ci ti ng D.C. Cod e § 17 -3 05 (20 01 )).

In rev ie win g a de ci si on to co m pe l arb it rat io n un de r th e Fe de ra l A rb itrati on Act,

we co ns id er fir st whe th er th e pa rti es ha d an ag ree m en t to arb it rat e th e di sp ut e.

Flee tw oo d Ent er

., su

pr a , 28 0 F.3d at 10 73 (ci ti ng Mit su bi sh i Mot or

s Co rp

. v. So le r

Ch ry sl er -Ply mou th

, In c. , 47 3 U.S. 61 4, 62 (1 98 5) ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. W e m ak e th is

de te rm in at io n ba se d on or di na ry st at e-l aw co nt ract pr in ci pl es

. I d. (ci ti ng Fir

st

Opt io ns of Ch ic ag o, su

pr a ). The FAA do es no t req ui re pa rti es to arb it rat e a di sp ut e

un le ss th ey ha ve ag reed to do so

. Vol t In fo

. Sc ie nc es

, In c. v. Bd. of Tr us te es of Lel an d

St an fo rd Ju ni or Uni v. , 48 9 U.S. 46 8, 47 8 (1 98 9)

. If it is de te rm in ed th at th e pa rti es

ha d a va li d ag reem en t to arb it rat e, th en we co ns id er ne xt whe th er th e pa rti es ’ di sp ut e

fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of th ei r ag reem en t. Flee tw oo d Ent er ., 28 0 F.3 d at 10 73 (ci ti ng

W eb b v . Inv es ta co rp , 89 F.3d 25 2, 2 58 (5t h C ir. 1 99 6) ).

The Ban k arg ue s th at

, in pe rfo rm in g ou r de no vo rev ie w, we m us t co ns id er th e36

na ti on al po li cy fav or in g arb it rat io n. Howev er, as th e Dis t r i c t p o i nt s ou t, “ th [e]

fed er a l po li cy fav or in g arb it rat io n do es no t ap pl y to th e de te rm in at io n of whe th er

th ere is a va li d ag reem en t to arb it rat e be twee n th e pa rti es ; in st ead ‘[o]rdi na ry co nt ract

pr in ci pl es de te rm in e who is bo un d.’” Flee tw oo d Ent er

., su pr a , 2 8 0 F.3 d at 10 73

(q uo ti ng Dai sy Mfg

. Co

., In c. v. NCR Co rp

. , 29 F.3 d 38 9, 39 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 )) (o th er

ci ta ti on om it te d) ; se e al

so Gra ni te Ro c k C

o

. v

. In t’l Bd. of Tea mst er s , 13 0 S. Ct

.

28 47

, 28 59 -6 0 (2 01 0) (h ol di ng th e pr es um pti on in fav or of arb it rat io n ap pl ic ab le on ly

“ whe re it refl ect s, an d de riv es it s le gi ti m acy fro m , a jud ic ia l co nc lu si on th at

arb it rat io n of a pa rti cu la r di sp ut e is what th e p art ie s in te nd ed be cau se th ei r ex pr es s

ag reem en t t o a r b i tra te

. . . [is ] be st co ns tru ed to en co m pa ss th e di sp ut e.”); ac co rd

,

Mas ur ov sk

y, su pr a no te 11 , 68 7 A.2 d a t 20 5. In Mas ur ov sk y , th is co ur t rejecte d an

arg um en t si m il ar to th e Ban k’s arg um en t he re, co nc lu di ng th at th e “ in it ia l

de te rm in at io n whe th er a ‘val id arb it rat io n ag reem en t’ ex is ts m us t be de te rm ine d ap art

fro m th e pr es um

pt io n [in fav or of arb it rat io n.]” Id

. In reac hi ng th is co nc lu si on , we

rel ie d up on th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s rei te rat io n of th e pr in ci pl e th at in de ci di ng whe th er

pa rti es ha ve ag reed to arb it rat e, co ur ts sh ou ld ge ne ral ly ap pl y st at e la w co nt ract

pr in ci pl es an d it s om is si on of an y su gg es ti on th at th es e pr in c i p l e s s h o ul d be

su pe rs ed ed by th e fed eral pr es um pt io n. Id

. (ci ti ng Fir

st Opt io ns of Ch ic ag o, su pr a ,

51 4 U.S. at 93 8)

. Co ns is te nt wit h th es e es ta bl is he d pr in ci pl es , we co nc lu de he re th at

th e pr es um

pt io n in fav or of arb it rat io n at ta ch es on ly aft er th e co ur t fin ds in it ia ll y th at37

a va li d ag reem en t to arb it rat e ex is ts

. Id

. W it h th es e pr in ci pl es in m in d, we tu rn to

co ns id erat io n o f whe th er t he pa rti es ag reed to arb it rat e th e d is pu te

.

B. Con tr ac t Is su es

The Ban k arg ue s th at it ha d a co nt ract ua l ag reem en t wit h th e Dis tri ct to

arb it rat e cl ai m s in Nor th Caro li na

. It co nt en ds th at of fic ia ls in th e Offi ce of th e Ch ie f

Fi na nc ia l Offi cer (OCFO) ag reed to th e te rm s se t fo rt h i n i t s Treas ur y Serv ic es

Bo ok le t whi ch in cl ud ed a pr ov is io n fo r arb it rat in g di sp ut es rel at ed to th e Co nt ro ll ed

Dis bu rs em en t Acco un t. On ap pe al

, th e Dis tri ct arg ue s, as it di d in th e tri al co ur t, th at

th ere was no ag reem en t to arb it r a t e c o n t r act or frau d cl ai m s be cau se OCFO

em pl oyees la ck ed act ua l au th or it y to en te r su ch ag reem en ts by reas on of pr ov is io ns

in th e PPA. The tri al co ur t ag reed wit h th e Dis tri ct ’s po si ti on , ru li ng th at at th e ti m es

rel ev an t to th e co nt ro ve rs y , OCFO of fic ia ls la ck ed th e au th or it y un de r th e P P A to

ag ree to arb it rat io n in Nor th Caro li na

. Fu rth er, th e tri al co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e 20 05

co nt ract in co rp or at in g th e PPA ev id en ced th e pa rti es ’ in te nt to ad he re to th e PPA in

it s de al in gs wit h th e Ban k. The co ur t al so fo un d th at th e 20 05 co nt ract pr ov is io ns

go ve rn in g di sp ut e res ol ut io n an d au th or it y to m od ify th e co nt ract su pe rs ed ed an y

di sp ut e res ol ut io n or fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se s pr ev io us ly ag reed up on by th e pa rti es

.

The Ban k c ha ll en ge s ea ch of t he se rul in gs

.38

1. Sc op e o

f Au th or it y o f OCFO Empl oy ees

Co nt rary to th e tri al co ur t’s ru li ng an d th e Dis tri ct ’s po si ti on , th e Ban k arg ue s

th at th e OCFO was au th or iz ed to ag ree to arb it rat e th e Dis tri ct ’s cl ai m s. The Dis tri ct

res po nd s th at it s em

p l o ye e s, in cl ud in g th os e in th e OCFO, who were bo un d by th e

PPA, la ck ed au th or it y to ag ree to arb it rat e co nt ract cl ai m s an d cl ai m s in vo lv in g

frau d. 2 4

The Dis tri ct rel ie s fo r it s arg um en t pr in ci pa ll y up on th e P P A s ta tu te an d th is

c o u r t ’s d eci si on in Dis tr ic t of Co lu mbi a v. Gre en e , 80 6 A.2d 21 6 (D.C. 20 02 ), i n

whi ch th is co ur t ad dr es se d a si m il ar is su e. In Gre en e , Veri zo n So ut h cl ai m ed th at it

ha d an ag reem en t w it h th e Dis tri ct to su bm it co nt ract di sp ut es to arb it rat io n, whi le

th e Dis tri ct cl ai m ed th at it di d no t be cau se it co ul d no t ag ree to arb it rat io n un de r th e

PPA. Gre en e , 80 6 A.2d at 21 8. In de te rm in in g whe th er to en joi n arb it rat io n un ti l th e

m at te r was res ol ve d by th e Co nt ract App eal s Bo ard (CA B )

, th is co ur t co ns tru ed

ap pl ic ab le pr ov is io ns of th e PPA an d de te rm in ed th at th e Dis tri ct was li ke ly to pr ev ai l

on th e m eri ts of it s argu m en t th at it s em pl oyees cou ld no t agre e to arb it rat io n un de r

th at PPA. Id

. 22 0- 22

. In reac hi ng th is co nc lu si on , th is co ur t ob se rv ed th at th e PPA

Fo r pu rp os es of th is ap pe al

, th e Dis tri ct do es no t co nt en d th at it s co nt ract in g 2 4

of fic ers lac k a ut ho rit y

to ag ree t o a rb it rat io n a s a g en eral pro po si ti on

.39

pl ai nl y es ta bl is he d th e CAB as th e ex cl us iv e he ari ng tri bu na l fo r de te rm in in g t he

co nt r a c t c l a i ms a t is su e in th e cas e. Id

. at 22 0. The co ur t fo un d pe rs ua si ve th e

fo ll owi ng pro vi si on s o f th e PPA, wh ic h a re re le va nt to th e is su es we ad dr es s h ere:

D.C. Co de § 2- 30 8.0 3 (a)( 1) st at es th at

. . . “ [a]ll cl ai m s by

th e Dis tri ct go ve rn m en t ag ai ns t a co nt ract or ari si ng un de r

or rel at in g to a co nt ract sh al l be de ci de d by th e co nt ract in g of fic er . . . .” In li ke fas hi on § 2 -3 08 .05 (a) p ro vi de s t ha t

“ [a]ll cl ai m s by a co nt ract or ag ai ns t th e Dis tr i ct

go ve rn m en t ari si ng un de r or rel at in g to a co nt ract sh al l be

. . . su bm it te d to th e co nt ract in g of fic er fo r a de ci si on .” In § 2- 3 0 9

. 0 3 ( a), th e st at ut e go es on to de cl are th at “ [t]he [Co nt ract A p p eal s] Bo ard sh al l be th e ex cl us iv e he ari ng tri bu na l fo r, an d sh al l ha ve juri sd ic t io n to rev ie w an d

de te rm in e de no vo :

. . . (2 ) Any ap pe al by a co nt ract or fro m

a f i na l de ci si on by t he co nt ract in g of fic er on a cl ai m b y a

co nt ract or , whe n su ch cl ai m ari se s un de r or rel at es to a

c on tra ct ; an d (3 ) Any cl ai m by th e Dis tri ct ag ai ns t a

co nt ract or , whe n su ch cl ai m ari se s un de r or rel at es to a

co nt ract .”

Gre en e , 80 6 A.2 d a t 2 20 (ci ti ng th e q uo te d s ect io ns ).

I n t e r pr et in g th es e an d ot he r pr ov is io ns of th e PPA, th is co ur t co nc lu de d in

Gre en e th at th e PPA, in effe ct

, wit hh el d fro m th e Dis tri ct ’s co nt ract in g of fic ers th e

po wer to a g r e e t o arb it rat io n by sp eci fy in g th e m an ne r in whi ch th e Dis tri ct m ay40

pr oc ur e pr op ert y , su pp li es an d se rv ic es an d de si gn at in g th e CAB as th e so le he ari ng 2 5

tri bu na l fo r res ol ut io n of co nt ract di sp ut es

. Gre en e , 80 6 A.2d at 22 2. Als o pe rti ne nt

to th e co ur t’s de ci si on , un de r lo cal co nt ract la w, a co nt ract in g of fic er can no t ob li ga te

th e Dis tri ct to te rm s th at ex ceed hi s or he r act ua l au th or it y

. Id

. at 22 2 (cit in g Co ff in

v. Dis tr ic t of Co lu mbi a , 32 0 A.2d 30 1, 30 3 (D.C. 19 74 )). Thu s, h ere, as in Gre en e ,

Dis tri ct em

pl oyees or e n t i t i e s s u b

ject to th e PPA wou ld ha ve ha d no au th or it y to

ag ree to a di sp ut e res ol ut io n pr oc ed ur e di ffer en t th an th e on e sp eci fie d by la w. The

ge ne ral ru le is th at pe rs on s co nt ract in g wit h a m un ic ip al co rp or at io n m

us t ta ke no ti ce

of th e na tu re an d ex te nt of it s ag en t ’s a u t h o rit y

. Id

. at 22 2 an d 22 2 n.7 (ci ti ng

Ch amb er la in v. Bar ry , 60 6 A.2d 15 6, 15 9 (D.C. 19 92 ), an d Co ff in

, 32 0 A.2d at 30 3

(q uo ti n g 1 0 McQu il la n Mu ni ci pa l Co rp or at io ns § 29 .04 at 21 9- 22 (3 d ed

. 19 66 )).

Thu s, the Ban k was b ou nd to no te an y st at ut or y li m it at io n o n t he au th or it y of t ho se

in th e Dis tri ct wit h wh om it co nt ract ed

.

To co un te r th es e au th or it ie s, th e Ban k arg ue s th at th ere is no st at ut or y

pr ov is io n sp eci fic al ly pr ecl ud in g th e OCFO fro m ag reei ng to arb it rat e. Thi s

arg um en t was m ad e an d reject ed in Gre en e. As th is co ur t ex pl ai ne d in th at cas e, th is

“ arg um en t is di ffi cu lt

, if no t im po ss ib le

, to sq ua re wit h th e la ng ua ge of § 2- 30 9.0 3

See D.C. Co de § 2 -3 01 .01

. 2 541

(a) m ak in g th e CAB ‘the ex cl us iv e he ari ng tri bu na l’ fo r cl ai m s of th e ki nd

en um erat ed .” Gre en e , 80 6 A.2d at 22 0 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Thu s, co nt ract in g of fic ers

w h o w e r e bo un d by th e PPA di d no t ha ve au th or it y to ag ree to res ol ve co nt rac t

di sp ut es in an ot he r fo ru m in an ot he r st at e.

W e fin d un pe rs ua si ve th e Ban k’s as se rti on th at Gre en e is no t su pp or ti ve of th e

D i st ric t’s po si ti on be cau se it in vo lv ed co ns id erat io n of in jun ct iv e rel ie f rat he r th an

a de ci si on on th e m eri ts of t h e c l a i m. In de te rm in in g whe th er to gr an t th is

ex tra or di na ry rem ed y , th e co ur t ha d to de ci de whe th er th ere was a su bs ta nt ia l

li ke li ho od th at th e m ov in g pa rty wou ld pr ev ai l on th e m eri ts

. Se e Gre en e, su pr a , 80 6

A.2d at 21 9- 20 (ci ti ng Dis tr ic t of Co lu mbi a v. Grp

. In s. Admi n. , 63 3 A.2d 2, 21 (D.C.

19 83 ) (q uo ti ng W

ie ck v. St er en bu ch

, 35 0 A.2d 38 4, 38 7 (D.C. 19 76 )). Thi s req ui red

th e co ur t to ad dr es s sq ua rel y th e sa m e qu es ti on rai se d he re, i.e

., whe th er th e PPA

wit hh el d au th or it y fro m it s co nt ract in g of fic ers to ag ree to arb it rat io n. In do in g so , th e

co ur t ha d to co ns tru e th e PPA st at ut e be fo re de ci di ng whe th er th e Dis tri ct was li ke ly

to pr ev ai l on it s cl ai m

. Thu s, we ag ree th at Gre en e is go od au th or it y fo r th e Dis tri ct ’s

po si ti on he re. Mo reo ve r, we are p ers ua de d b y it s s ta tu to ry

an al y si s o f th e is su e.

Nex t, th e Ban k arg ue s th at th e OCFO is ex em pt fro m PPA pr ov is io ns reg ard in g

co nt ract in g au th or i t y. I t co nt en ds th at D.C. Co de § 2- 30 1.0 4 (a) an d su bs eq ue nt42

Co ng res si on al en act m en ts co nf irm th e in de pe nd en t au th or it y of the O CF O to co nt ract

an d th eref

or e to ag ree to arb it rat io n. The D is tri ct res po nd s wit h au th or it ie s 2 6

su pp or ti ng it s cl ai m

th at th e OCFO h as alwa y s b een bo un d b y th e PPA.

The se ct io n of th e Co de up on whi ch th e Ban k rel ie s fo r it s ex em pt io n arg um en t

read s i n p ert in en t p art as f ol lo ws:

. . . [t h e P P A ] sh al l ap pl y to al l de pa rtments

, ag en ci es , i n s t r u men t a l i t i e s , a n d em pl o ye e s o f t h e D i s t r i c t

go ve rn m en t

. ex cl ud in g

. . ., an d (to th e ex te nt de sc rib ed in § 1- 20 4.2 6) th e Offi ce of th e Ch ie f Fi na nc ia l Offi cer of th e Dis tri ct of C ol um

bi a . . . .

D.C. Co de § 2- 30 1.0 4 (a) (2 00 1) (“ 20 05 ex em pt io n” ). Howev er, as th e Dis tri ct

2 7

po in ts ou t, § 2- 30 1.0 4 (a)’s ex em pt io n is su bjec t to th e li m it at io n fo rth in § 1- 20 4.2 6.

Alt ho ug h § 1- 20 4.2 6 pr o v i d e d fo r th e CFO to carr y ou t pr oc ur em en t of go od s an d

se rv ic es fo r th e OCFO th ro ug h an of fic e in de p e n d e nt of th e Ch ie f Pro cu rem en t

The Co ng res si on al act io ns refe ren ced by th e Ban k are: Dis tri ct of Co lu m bi a 2 6 App ro pr ia ti on s Act, 20 06

, 10 9 Pu b. L. No. 11 5, § 13 2, 11 9 St at

. 25 08

, 25 22 (2 00 5) ; Co nt in ui ng App ro pr ia ti on Res ol ut io n 20 07

, Pu b. L. No. 10 9- 28 9, § 12 7( b)

, 12 0 St at

. 13 11

, 13 16 (2 00 6) ; H.J . Res . 10 0, 1 09 Pu b. L. No. 36 9, 12 0 Stat

. 26 42 (2 00 6) ; H.J.

Res . 10 2, 1 09 Pu b. L. No. 3 83 , 12 0 S ta t. 2 67 8 (2 00 6)

.

Thi s p ro vi si on was re pe al ed effec ti ve Apri l 8 , 20 11 . D.C. Law 18- 37 1, 2 7
§ 1 20 1( a).43

Offi cer (CPO), it m ad e th e OCFO su bjec t to th e s am e pr oc ur em en t pr ov is io ns

ap pl ic ab le to th e CPO. Se e D.C. Co de § 1- 20 4.2 6. Thu s, whi le § 2

- 3 0 1

. 0 4 (a) 2 8

pr ov id ed th e OCFO wit h in de pe nd en t co nt ract in g au th or it y , it m ad e it su bjec t to th e

PPA’s pr oc ur em en t pr ov is io ns to th e sa m e ex te nt as th e CPO. The Ban k arg ue s th at

su ch an in te rp ret at io n wou ld ren de r th e ex cl us io n in § 2- 30 1.0 4 (a) mea n i n g le ss ,

co nt rary to th e ru le of st at ut or y co ns tru ct io n req ui rin g th at effe ct be gi ve n to each

st at ut or y pr ov is io n, ab se nt ex pr es s le gi sl at iv e in te nt to th e co nt rary. It co nt en ds th at

to gi ve effe ct to bo th st at ut es , §1 -2 04 .26 m us t be in te rp ret ed to au th or iz e th e OCFO

to pr o c u re go od s an d se rv ic es in de pe nd en t fro m th e PPA ex cep t whe n it s

pr oc ur em en t i s ca rri ed ou t b y th e OCFO’s Ch ie f Pro cu rem en t Offi cer. 2 9

D.C. Cod e § 1-2 04 .26 pro vi de s i n p ert in en t p art as f ol lo ws: 2 8

The Ch ie f Fi na n ci al Offi cer sh al l carr y ou t

pr oc ur em en t of go od s an d se rv ic es fo r th e Offi ce of th e Ch ie f Fi na nc ia l Offi cer t h ro ug h a

pr oc ur em en t of

fic e or di vi si on whi ch sh al l op erat e in de pe nd en tl y of

, an d sh al l no t be go ve rn ed by, th e Offi ce of Con tra ct in g and Pro cu rem en t .

. . or an y

su cces so r of

fic e, exce pt th e pr ov is io ns ap

pl ic ab le

un de r su ch un it to pr oc ur emen t ca rr ie d ou t by th e Ch ie f Pro cu re men t Off

ic er es ta bl is he d by § 2-

30 1.0 5 or an

y su c c e ss or of

fi ce sh al l ap

pl y wi th

re sp ect to th e pr oc ur emen t c a rr ie d ou t by th e Ch ie f Fin an ci al Off

ic er ’s pr oc ur emen t of

fi ce or di vi si on . (Em

ph as is ad de d.)

The Ban k rel ie s up on th e Sep te m be r 25

, 20 00 an d Mar ch 6, 20 0 6 TS B 2 9

Aut ho riz at io n s be cau se th ey were no t carr ie d ou t by OCFO’s Ch ie f Pro cu rem en t (co nt in ue d...)44

W e ha ve no qu arre l wit h th e Ban k’s reci ta ti on of th e r u l e of st at ut or y

co ns tru ct io n; ho wev er, i ts ap pl ic at io n o f th e ru le he re i s fl awed . B ot h § 2- 30 1.0 4

3 0

(a) an d § 1- 20 4.2 6, refe ren ced th erei n, can be gi ve n effe ct wit ho ut on e de feat in g th e

pu rp os e of th e ot he r. W hi le § 2- 30 1

. 0 4 ( a ) p ro vi de d fo r in de pe nd en t co nt ract in g

au th or it y fo r th e OCFO, § 1- 20 4.2 6 si m pl y req ui red th at in ex erci si ng th at au th or it y ,

th e OCFO ad he re to th e sa m e st at ut or y pr oc ur em en t req ui rem en ts by whi ch th e

Dis tri ct ’s CPO was bo un d. Thi s in te rp ret at io n, pe rs ua si ve ly ur ge d by th e Dis tri ct

, is

co ns is te nt wit h th e pl ai n m ean in g of th e st at ut es

. Se e Boy le v. Gir al

, 82 0 A.2d 56 1,

56 8 (D.C. 20 03 ) (s et ti ng fo rth th e pr in ci pl e th at we lo ok fir st to th e pl ai n m ean in g of

a st at ut e in in te rp ret in g it

, read in li gh t of the st at ut e as a who le ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

The re is no t h i n g i n th e st at ut e th at su gg es ts

, as th e Ban k co nt en ds

, th at Dis tri ct

of fic ia ls in th e OCFO’s Offi ce of Fi na n c e a n d Tr e a su ry , a s op po se d to th os e in th e

Pro cu rem en t Office

, were at lib ert y to ig no re the req ui rem en ts of th e PPA. In an y 3 1

(...co nt in ue d) 2 9

Offi cer.

Se e Detw ei le r v. Pen a , 38 F.3 d 59 1, 59 4 (D.C. Ci r. 19 94 ) (q uo ti ng Mor to n

3 0

v

. M a n ca ri

, 41 7 U.S. 53 5, 55 1 (1 97 4) (“ W he n two st at ut es are cap ab le of co

ex is te nc e, i t i s th e du ty of th e co ur ts

, ab se nt a cl earl y ex pr es se d co ng res si on al

in te nt io n to th e co nt rary, to reg ard each as effe ct iv e.”)) ; se e al so Ab a d i e v. Dis tr ic t of Co lu mbi a , 84 3 A.2d 73 8, 74 2 (D

. C

. 2 0 0 4 ) (s ta ti ng th at “ [i]f rel at ed st at ut es

co nf li ct , we m us t re co nc il e th em ”). (Ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

The 20 00 an d 20 06 TSB Aut ho riz at io ns were ex ecu te d by Dis tri ct Offi ci al s 3 1

in th e OCFO’s Offi ce of F i n a n c e an d Treas ur y , act in g un de r a 20 00 co rp or at e (co nt in ue d...)45

ev en t, th e pa rti es ’ 20 05 co nt ract

, he rei na f t e r di sc us se d, in co rp or at ed th e PPA, an d

th us , as th e tri al co ur t de te rm in ed

, “ ev id en ce[d ] th e in te nt of th e OCFO to ad he re to

th e PPA wi th res pe ct to it s d eal in gs wit h t he [Ban k].”

Thi s co ur t’s de ci si on in Aba di e, su p ra , 84 3 A.2d at 73 8, rel ie d up on by th e

Dis tri ct

, su pp or ts it s arg um en t th at th e OCFO was su bjec t to th e PPA. In Aba di e , th is

co ur t co nc lu de d th at

, wit h li m it ed

, sp eci fie d ex cep ti on s, th e PPA ap pl ie d to th e OCFO

du rin g “ co nt ro l y ears .” Id

. at 74 5- 46

. The co ur t no te d in Aba di e th at § 2- 30 1.0 4 (a), 3 2

whi ch se ts fo rth go ve rn m en ta l en ti ti es ex em pt fro m t h e P PA, di d no t in cl ud e th e

OCFO, al th ou gh it d i d li st th e Co nt ro l Bo ard fo r ex em pt io n. Id . a t 74 3. Co ns is te nt

wit h th e le gi sl at iv e hi st or y an d ru le s of st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n, th is co ur t he ld in

Aba di e t h a t th e OCFO’s ex em pt io n fo r co nt ro l y ears ap pl ie d on ly to th e types of

(...co nt in ue d) 3 1

res ol ut io n. The Ban k con te nd s th at th es e pa rti cu la r of fic ia ls were no t bo un d by th e PPA.

The Pro cu rem en t Refo rm Am en dm en t Act of 19 96 (eff ect iv e Apr il 19 97 ) 3 2 (Ref or m Act) ex em

pt ed th e OCFO fro m pr ov is io ns of th e PPA du rin g co nt ro l y ears ,

an d req ui red th e OCFO to “ ad op t

. . . th e pr oc ur em en t ru le s an d reg ul at io ns ad op te d by th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m bi a Fi na nc ia l Res po ns ib il it y an d Man ag em en t Ass is ta nc e Aut ho rit y [Co nt ro l Bo ard ]. ” D.C. Co de § 2- 30 1.0 4 (c) (2 00 1)

. A co nt ro l y ear is “ an y fis cal y ear fo r whi ch a fin an ci al pl an an d bu dg et ap pr ov ed by th e [Co nt ro l Bo ard ]

. . . is in effe ct

, an d in cl ud es Fi sc al Yea r 1 9 9 6

. ” D

. C

. Co de § 47 -3 93 (4 ) (2 00 5)

. In

Aba di e, su

pr a , th is co ur t co ns id ered an d in te rp ret ed se ve ral st at ut or y pr ov is io ns rel at ed to it s de ci si on in cl ud in g th os e rel at ed to th e OCFO an d th e PPA. Se e Aba di e , 84 3 A.2 d a t 7 41 , 74 2- 44

.46

co nt ract s li st ed in th e se nt en ce th at im m ed ia te ly pr eced ed it

, i.e.

, th os e fo r pr of es si on al

se rv ic es of “ acco un ta nt s, l awy ers , and ot he r ex pe rts .” Id

. at 74 5.

The Ban k arg ue s th at ev en if Aba di e co ul d be co ns tru ed as su bjec ti ng th e OCFO

to t h e PPA, it s ho ld in g was reject ed by su bs eq ue nt Co ng res si on al en act m en ts

,

sp eci fic al ly, th e Dis tri ct ’s 20 06 App ro pr ia ti on s Act, whi ch be cam e la w on Nov em be r

30

, 20 05 (eff

ect iv e r e t r oa ct iv el y fro m Apr il 19 97 ), th ree ex te ns io ns of th e 20 05

ex em pt io n, an d pe rm an en t co di fic at io n of th e ex em pt io n i n D

. C. Co de § 2- 30 1.0 4.

The Dis tri ct res po nd s th at th ere is no ev id en ce th at Co ng res s co ns id ered or in te nd ed

to ov erru l e Ab a d i e an d th at th e 20 06 App ro pr ia ti on s Act di d no t ex em pt th e OCFO

fro m th e di sp ut e res ol ut io n pr ov is io ns o f th e PPA or ren de r in effe ct iv e th e te rm s of

th e pa rti es ’ 20 05 co nt ract in co rp or at in g th e PPA th at was ex ecu te d be fo re en act m en t

of th e st at ut e.

The 20 06 App ro pr ia ti on s Act pro vi de d t ha t

[t]he en ti re pr oc e s s us ed by th e Ch ie f Fi na nc ia l Offi cer to

acq ui re an y

an d a ll ki nd s o f go od s, wo rk s, an d s erv ic es by

an y co n tra ct ua l m ean s

. . . sh al l be ex em pt fro m al l of th e

pr ov is io ns of th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m bi a’s Pro cu rem e nt

Prac ti ces Act: Pro vi de d

, Tha t pr ov is io ns m ad e by th is

su bs ect i o n s h a l l ta ke effe ct as if en act ed in D.C. Law 11

- 25 9 [(t he 19 96 Pro cu rem en t Refo rm Am en dm en t Act) ] an d47

sh al l re m ai n i n e ffec t u nt il Sep te m be r 30 , 20 06

.

Dis tri ct of Co lu m

bi a App ro pr ia ti on s Act, 20 06

, Pu b. L. No. 10 9- 11 5, § 13 2, 11 9 St at

.

23 96

, 25 22 (2 00 5)

. W hi le th e 2 0 0 6 A c t e xe m pt ed th e OCFO fro m th e PPA wit h 3 3

res pe ct to th e acq ui si ti on of go od s an d se rv ic es by co nt ract

, it di d no t ad dr es s th e

ad m in is tra ti on of an y co nt ract en te red or th e res ol ut io n of di sp ut es ari si ng th eref ro m

co ve red by se c t i o ns of th e PPA. To th at ex te nt

, it le ft in ta ct ot he r pr ov is io ns of th e

PPA go ve rn in g co nt ract ad m in is tra t io n. Neit he r th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th es e

en act m en ts no r th e le gi sl at iv e hi st or y c i t e d b y th e Ban k su pp or ts it s arg um en t th at

Co ng res s in te nd ed to ov erru le Aba di e

. W he n ov erru li ng co ur t de ci si on s, Co ng res s 3 4

ha s b een ex pl ic it in th e p as t. 3 5

Thi s ex em

pt io n was ext en de d th ree ti m es th ro ug h Feb ru ary 15

, 20 07

. Se e 3 3

Co nt in ui ng App ro pr ia ti on s R e s o l u t io n 20 07

, Pu b. L. No. 10 9- 28 9, § 12 7 (b ), 12 0

St at

. 13 11

, 13 16 (2 00 6) (ex te ns io n th ro ug h 11 /1 7/ 06 ); H.J. Res

. 10 0, 10 9 Pu b. L. No.

36 9, 12 0 St at 26 42

, 26 42 (2 00 6) (ex te ns io n th ro ug h 12 /8 /0 6) ; H.J. Res

. 10 2, 10 9 Pu b.

L. No. 38 3, 1 20 Sta t. 2 67 8, 2 67 8 (2 00 6) (ex te ns io n t hr ou gh 2/ 15 /0 7)

.

Refe ren ce is m ad e to H.R. C on f. Rep . 1 09 -3 07 (2 00 5) , 2 05 W L 3 13 15 57 : 3 4 S. Rep . 10 9- 10 9 (2 00 5) (20 05 ), rep rin te d i n 2 00 6 U.S.C.C .A.N. 126 0.

Se e , e.g

. , Mol ov in sk

y v

. Fai r Emp’t Co un ci l of Gre at er W as hi ng to n, In c. , 3 5

68 3 A.2d 14 2, 14 8 n.1 1 ( D.C. 19 96 ) (No ti ng th at “ [t]he le gi sl at iv e hi st or y m ak es cl ear th at Co ng res s sp eci fic al ly in te nd ed to ov erru le Lu ck [ v. Uni te d St at es , 12 1 U.S. App

. D.C. 15 1, 34 8 F.2 d 76 3 (1 96 5) ], reject in g th e Lu ck ru le a s ‘abs ol ut el y

un wor ka bl e.’ H.R. Rep

. No. 91 -9 07

, [9 1t Co ng ., 2d Ses s. 62

, 63 (1 97 0) ]”; Bro wn v. Uni te d St at es , 51 8 A.2d 44 6, 44 7- 48 n.3 (D.C. 19 86 ) (ref eren ci ng le gi sl at iv e hi st or y refl ect in g Co ng res si on al in te nt to ov erru le de fin it io n of a te rm in a pa rti cu la r cas e as (co nt in ue d...)48

The Dis tri ct arg ue s th at th e pr oc es s us ed to ac q u i r e t h e Ban k’s se rv ic es ha d

co nc lu de d be fo re th is la w was en act ed

. Alt ho ug h th is pr ov is io n was m ad e ret ro act iv e

to 19 97

, th e Dis tri ct arg ue s th at th e 20 06 Act di d no t i n v a li da te th e pa rti es ’ 20 05

ag reem en t to be bo un d by th e PPA, as th e Ban k su gg es ts

. As it po in ts ou t, th e “ la ws

in effe ct at th e ti m e of th e m ak in g of a co nt ract fo rm a pa rt of th e co nt ract ‘as fu ll y as

if th ey ha d be en ex pr es sl y refe rred to or in co rp or at ed in it s te rm s.’” Dou bl e H. Hou s.

Co rp

. v. Big W

as h, In c. , 79 9 A.2d 11 95

, 11 99 (D.C. 20 02 ) (q u o t i n g Far mer s &

Mer ch an ts Ban k of

Mon ro e v. Fed

er al Rese rv e Ban k of

Rich mon d

, 26 2 U.S. 64 9, 66 0

(1 92 3) ) (o th er ci ta ti on om it te d) ; ac co rd

, Aka ss y v. W il li am Pen n Apt

s. Lt d. P’sh ip

, 89 1

A.2d 29 1, 30 0 (D.C. 20 06 ). In th is cas e, th e pa rti es sp eci fic al ly in co rp or at ed in to th e

20 05 co nt ract th e PPA, t he law i n e ffec t at th e ti m e.

The Dis tri c t c o n te nd s th at th e PPA is ev en cl eare r in pr ecl ud in g OCFO

em pl oyees fro m ag re e i n g to arb it rat e cl ai m s in vo lv in g frau d. W hi le th e PPA

au th or iz ed co nt ract in g of

fic ers to res ol ve co nt ract di sp ut es ( se e D.C. Co de § 2- 30 8.0 3

(a)( 1) (2 00 6 Rep l.))

, it di d “ no t au th or iz e th e co nt ract in g of fic er to se tt le

, co m

pr om is e,

pa y or ot he rwis e ad

jus t an y cl ai m in vo l v in g frau d.” D.C. Co de § 2- 30 8.0 3 (a)( 4)

(...co nt in ue d) 3 5

refl ect ed in H.R. Rep . No. 9 07 , 91 st Co ng . 2d Ses s. 6 2 (1 97 0) ).49

(2 00 6 Rep l.))

. The Dis tri ct arg ue s th at th is ex pr es s pr oh ib it io n pr ec l ud ed a 3 6

co nt ract in g of

fic er fo r th e Dis tri ct fro m ag reei ng to a r b i t r at io n of cl ai m s in vo lv in g

frau d.

A pr el im in ary qu es ti on rai se d by th e Dis tri ct ’s po si ti on is whe th er an ag reem en t

t o arb it rat e a di sp ut e fal ls wit hi n th e pa ram et ers of th es e PPA pr oh ib it io ns

. Th e

an swe r de pe nd s to so m e ex te nt up on th e m ean in g of th e te rm “ arb it rat io n.” Thi s co ur t

ha s o bs erv ed pre vi ou sl y

th at The Fe de ral Arbi tra ti on Act “ is si le nt on th e d efi ni ti on

of ‘arbi tra ti on .’ ” Se e W as hi ng to n Au to mot iv e v. 18 28 L St

. Ass oc s. , 90 6 A.2d 86 9, 3 7

87 5 (D.C. 20 06 ); se e al

so Har ri so n v. Ni ss an Mot or Co rp . I n U.S.A. , 1 11 F. 3 d 3 43

,

35 0 (3 d Ci r. 19 97 ) (n ot in g th at th e FAA do es no t de fin e “ arb it rat io n,” an d th at “ co ur ts

an d co m m en ta to rs ha ve st ru gg le d to do so .”). In de te rm in in g w he th er a cert ai n

ap pr ai sa l pr oc es s co ns ti tu te d an arb it rat io n un de r th e F A A

, t he Ten th Ci rcu it no te d

th at “ [c]ent ral to an y co nc ep ti on of cl as si c arb it rat io n is th at th e di sp ut an ts em po wered

a th ird pa rty to ren de r a d eci si on set tl in g t he ir d is pu te .” Sa lt La ke Tr ib un e v. Mg mt.

Pla nn in g , 39 0 F.3 d 68 4, 68 9 (2 00 4) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Als o es se nt ia l to ren de rin g th e

D.C. Co de § 30 8.0 3 was rep eal ed effe ct iv e Apr il 8, 20 11

, D.C. Law 18 -3 71

, 3 6
§ 1 20 1( a).

Si m il arl y , t hi s co ur t no te d th at th e D.C. Ar bi tra ti on Act di d n ot de fin e th e 3 7

te rm “ arb it rat io n.” W

as hi ng to n Au to mot iv e , su pr a , 90 6 A.2 d a t 8 75

.50

pr oc es s an arb it rat io n is th at th e th ird pa rty’ s de ci si on wil l se t t l e th e di sp ut e. Id

. at

69 0 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. In de fin in g arb it rat io n in Har ri so n, su pr a , t he co ur t st at ed

,

“ [a]lt ho ug h it de fie s eas y de fin it io n, th e es se nc e of arb it rat io n

. . . i s t h a t

, w h e n th e

pa rti es ag ree to su bm it th ei r di sp ut es to it

, th ey ha ve gr eed to arb it rat e th es e di sp ut es

th ro ug h to co m

pl et io n.” 11 1 F.3 d at 35 0. Dict io na ry de fin it i o n s i n cl ud e th es e

de sc rib ed el em en ts

, in cl ud in g bi nd in g and fin al se tt le m en t or reso lu ti on of a di sp ut e

by a de si gn at ed th ird pa rty. The PPA pr ecl ud es co nt ract in g of fic ers fro m se tt li ng or 3 8

ad jus ti ng di sp ut es in vo lv in g frau d. W he n th e go ve rn m en t is a pa rty to a co nt ract

, it s

rep res en ta ti ve m

us t ha ve act ua l au th o r i t y i n or de r to bi nd th e go ve rn m en t to it

. Se e

Han li n v. Uni te d St at es , 31 6 F.3 d 13 25

, 13 28 (Fed

. Ci r. 20 03 ) ( s e t t in g fo rth act ua l

au th or it y as an el em en t of pr oo f req ui red to pr ov e an ex pr es s or im pl ie d- in f a c t

co nt ract wit h th e go ve rn m en t); ac co rd

, Ci ty of Ci nc in na ti v. Uni te d St at es , 15 3 F.3d

1 37 5, 13 77 (Fed

. Ci r. 19 98 ). It fo ll ows rat io na ll y th at a go ve rn m en t rep res en ta ti v e

can no t del eg at e to an ot he r act ua l aut ho rit y th at he or s he do es no t po ss es s. In sh or t,

co nt ract in g of

fic ers bo un d by th e PPA can no t ag ree to se tt le

, co m pr om is e or ot he rwis e

Fo r ex am pl e, arb it rat io n is de fin ed as “ [a] m et ho d of di sp ut e res ol ut io n 3 8

in vo lv in g on e or m or e ne ut ral th ird pa rti es who are us ua ll y ag reed to by th e di sp ut in g

pa rti es an d who se de ci si on is bi nd in g.” Bla ck’s La w Dict io na ry , 11 2 (8 th ed

. 20 09 ).

W eb st er ’s Th ir d New Int er na ti on al Dict io na ry de fin es “ arb it rat io n” as “ th e he ari ng

an d de te rm in at io n of a cas e be twee n p a r t i e s in co nt ro ve rs y by a pe rs on or pe rs on s ch os en by t he pa rti es or ap po in te d u nd er s ta tu to ry au th or it y in st ead of b y

a jud ic ia l

tri bu na l p ro vi de d b y la w.” W eb st er ’s Th ir d New Int er na ti on al Dict io na ry , 11 0 (3 d

ed . 19 93 ).51

ad jus t fr au d c la im s, an d t he y can no t de le ga te to ot he rs th e au th or it y to do so . Thu s,

we ag ree wit h th e Dis tri ct th at th e PPA wit hh el d au th or it y fro m OCFO em pl oyees to

ag ree to arb it rat e frau d cl ai m s as well as c o n t r a c t cl ai m s. “ A pe rs on m ak in g or

se ek in g to m ak e a co nt ract wit h a m un ic ip al co rp or at io n is ch arg ed or im pu te d wi th

kn owl ed ge of th e sc op e of th e ag en cy ’s au th or it y .” Ch amb er la in v. Bar ry , 60 6 A.2d

15 6, 1 59 (19 92 ) (ci ti ng Co ff in , su pr a , 32 0 A.2 d a t 3 03 ).

2. Preemp ti on

Th e Ban k arg ue s th at ev en if th e PPA di d ap pl y to th e OCFO, th e F A A

pr eem pt s st at e la ws l ik e th e PPA. It co nt en ds th at th e FAA pr oh ib it s s ta te law fro m

in te rfer in g wit h th e ob

jecti ve s of th e FAA, an d th eref or e, th e Dis tri ct ’s arg um en t th at

th e PPA wit hh el d au th or it y f r o m Dis tri ct of

fic ia ls to ag ree to arb it rat io n m us t fai l.

Unq ue st io na bl y , th e FAA “ es ta bl is he s a na ti on al po li cy fav or in g arb it rat io n wh en th e

pa rt ie s co nt ra ct

fo r th at mod e of di sp ut e re so lu ti on

. ” Pres to n v. Ferr er , 55 2 U.S. 34 6,

34 9 (2 00 8) (ci ti ng So ut hl an d Co rp

. v. Kea ti ng , 46 5 U.S. 1 (1 98 4) ) (em ph as is ad de d)

.

The FAA pr ov id es fo r th e ap pl ic at io n of fed eral su bs ta nt iv e la w reg ard in g arb it rat io n

in bo th fed eral an d st at e co ur ts

. Id

. (ci ti ng So ut hl an d

, 46 5 U.S. at 16 ). Rel y in g up on

Pres to n , th e Ban k arg ue s th at th e PPA’s gr an t of ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on of FCA cl ai m s

to Su pe rio r Co ur t an d co nt ract cl ai m s to th e Co nt ract in g Offi cer a n d t h e CAB is52

su pe rs ed ed by th e FAA. The Dis tri ct co un te rs th at Pres to n di d n ot in vo lv e a s ta tu te

th at wit hh el d a ut ho rit y

fro m a go ve rn m en t em

pl oyee to ag ree to arb it rat e, bu t ra th er

on e th at ba rs en fo rcem en t of ot he rwis e en fo rcea bl e arb it rat io n ag re e m en ts

. The

Dis tri ct arg ue s th at th e fo rm er is pe rm is si bl e, whi le th e la tt er is no t. The Dis tri ct ha s

th e b et te r arg um en t o n t hi s p oi nt

.

In Pres to n , th ere was no d i s p u t e th at th e pa rti es ha d a writ te n ag reem en t

pr ov id in g fo r arb it rat io n. The Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at “ w h en pa rt ie s ag re e to

ar bi tr at e al l qu es ti on s ar is in g un d e r a co nt ra ct

, st at e la ws lo dg in g pr im ary

juri sd ic tio n in an ot he r fo ru m , whe th er jud ic ia l or ad m in is tra ti ve , are su pe rs ed ed by th e

FAA.” Id

. at 34 9- 50 (em

ph as is ad de d)

. Pres to n, cl ai m i n g fees al le ge dl y du e un de r

a co nt ract wit h Ferr er, so ug ht arb it rat io n un de r an arb it rat i o n c l a u s e co ve rin g “ an y

di sp ut e

. . . rel at in g to th e te rm s of [th e co nt ract ] or br each

, va li di ty, or le ga li ty th ereo f

. . . in acco rd an ce wit h th e ru le s [o f th e Am eri can Arb it rat io n Ass oc ia ti on ]. ” Id

. at

35 0. Ferr er pe ti ti on ed t h e Cal ifo rn ia Lab or Co m m is si on er to ha ve th e co nt ract

de cl ared vo id un de r th e Cal ifo rn ia Tale nt Age nc ie s Act (TAA) be cau se Pres to n ha d 3 9

act ed as a ta le nt ag en t wit ho ut th e req ui si te li cen se

. Id

. Alt ho ug h fin di ng a ba si s fo r

th e ex erci se of juri sd ic ti on , t he Lab or Co m m is si on ’s h eari ng of

fic er d en ie d F erre r’s

Cal . Lab. Co de Ann . § 1 70 0 et seq

. (West 2 00 3 a nd Su pp . 20 08 ). 3 953

m ot io n to st ay arb it rat io n for la ck of au th or it y to gr an t su ch rel ie f. The Los Ang el es

Su pe rio r Co ur t de ni ed Pres to n’s m ot io n to co m pe l arb it ra

tio n, an d the Ca lif

or ni a Co ur t

of App eal s affi rm ed

, ho ld in g th at th e TAA ve st s “ ex cl us iv e or ig in al juri sd ic ti on ” ov er

th e di sp ut e in th e Lab or Co m m is si on er. The Cal ifo rn ia Su pr em e Co ur t de ni ed rev ie w,

an d th e Su pr em e Co ur t gr an te d cert io rari to de te rm in e whe th er t h e F A A ov erri de s

st at e la w v es ti ng in it ia l ad jud ic at or y

au th or it y in a st at e ad m in is tra ti ve ag en cy . The

Su pr em e Co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e TAA co nf li ct s wit h th e FAA’s di sp ut e res ol ut io n

m ech an is m in th at (1 ) it gr an te d ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on to th e Lab or Co m m is si on er to

de ci de an is su e th at th e pa rti es ag reed to arb it rat e, an d (2 ) it im po se d pr ereq ui si te s to

en fo rcem en t of th e arb it rat io n ag reem en t no t ap pl ic ab le to co nt ract s ge ne ral ly. Id

. at

35 6. The refo re, th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at th e FAA su pe rs ed ed st at e la w (th e TAA)

a nd th at pu rs ua nt to th e pa rti es ’ co nt ract

, th ei r rig ht s m us t be de ci de d in an a r b i t r a l

fo ru m

. Id

. at 3 52

.

Th e re is an im

po rta nt di ffer en ce be twee n th e ci rcu m st an ces pr es en te d i n

Pres to n an d th os e p r e s e nt ed he re. In th is cas e, th e PPA si m pl y im po se s st at ut or y

res tri ct io ns on th e au th or it y of m un ic ip al em

pl oyees to ag ree to arb it rat io n. It do es no t

ba r en fo rcem en t of va li d arb it rat io n ag reem en ts or im po se co nd it io n s u p on su ch

ag reem en ts no t ap pl ic ab le to ot he r co nt ract s. Se e Gre en e, su pr a , 80 6 A.2d at 22 1. As

th e co ur t st at ed in Gre en e in ad dr es si ng an an al og ou s arg um e n t t h a t a p pl ie s he re:54

“ wha t [th e B a n k ’s ] a rg um en t do es is to m is ta ke th e au th or it y of a st at e to ba r

en fo rcem en t of ot he rwis e va li d arb it rat io n ag reem en t s — po wer de ni ed th e st at e

ex cep t in so fa r a s § 2 [o f th e FAA] pe rm it s — fo r th e au th or it y of a go ve rn m en t

co nt ract in g fo r go od s or se rv ic es in it s own be ha lf to refu se to ag ree to arb it rat e

d i s p u te s.” Id

. The FAA do es no t m an da te arb it rat io n; it req ui res en fo rcem en t of

pr iv at el y ne go ti at ed arb it rat io n ag reem en ts

. Id

. at 22 2. Here, th e PPA wit hh el d fro m

co nt ract in g of

fic ers th e au th or it y to bi nd th e Dis tri ct to arb it rat io n, jus t as an y pr iv at e

co rp or at io n or in di vi du al m ig ht li m it an ag en t’s co nt ract in g au th or it y

. The refo re, we

reject th e Ban k’s p reem

pt io n a rg um en t.

3. Co nt ro ll in g C

on tr ac tu al

Agr eemen t

As pr ev io us ly d i s c u s s ed

, th e tri al co ur t ru le d th at th e PPA, whi ch was

in co rp or at ed in to th e 2 00 5 c on tra ct , wit hh el d fr om th e CFO an d OCFO of

fic ia ls th e

au th or it y to ag ree to arb it rat io n an d fo ru m se le ct io n fo r co nt ract an d fr au d cl ai m s at

th e ti m e th e au th or iz at io n an d ag reem en ts fo r Treas ur y S erv ic es were si gn ed

.

Alt ern at iv el y , the tr ia l co ur t fo un d th at th e pa rti es ’ 20 05 co nt ract pr ov is io ns go ve rn in g

di sp ut e res ol ut io n an d co nt ract m od ifi cat io n su pe rs ed ed an y cl au se s on the subj ec t tha t

th e Ban k cl ai m s were ag reed up on pr ev io us ly an d an y pr ov is io n th at wou ld ot he rwis e

al lo w Dis tri ct of

fic ia ls to ag ree to arb it rat io n in Nor th Caro li na or el se wh e r e

. The55

co ur t al s o c o n cl ud ed th at aft er ex ecu ti on of th e 20 05 co nt ract

, th e Dep ut y

CFO/ Treas ur er la ck ed au th or it y to bi nd th e Dis tri ct to di sp ut e res ol ut io n cl au se s in th e

2 0 0 8 de po si t ag reem en t. The Ban k arg ue s th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in it s ru l i n g s

be cau se : (1 ) it m is ap pl ie d ba si c c o n tra ct in te gr at io n pr in ci pl es in ho ld in g

un en fo rcea bl e th e arb i t r a t i on pr ov is io ns in th e TSB an d th e fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se s

in th e Dep os it Agr eem en t si gn ed be fo re th e 20 05 co nt ract ; an d (2 ) th e 20 05 co nt ract

can no t su pe rs ed e do cu m en t s c on ta in in g su ch pr ov is io ns si gn ed by Dis tri ct of fic ia ls

aft er th e 20 0 5 c o n t r a c t was en te red

. The Ban k co nt en ds th at th e 20 05 co nt ract is 4 0

pa rti al ly in te gr at ed an d th at th e arb it rat io n cl au se in th e TSB an d th e fo ru m se le ct io n

pr ov is io ns in th e Dep os it Agr eem en ts op erat e ha rm on io us ly an d m us t be in te gr at ed

in to th e 20 05 co nt ract

. Alt ern at iv el y , it arg ue s th at su bs eq ue nt ly ex ecu te d ag reem en ts

co nt ro l d is pu te res ol ut io n.

a. Eff ect of th e 2 00 5 C

on tr ac t o n Pr io r Ag re emen ts

The do cu m en ts th e Ban k refe ren ces in cl ud e: (1 ) pr e v io us ly an d 4 0

s u b se qu en tl y si gn ed Aut ho riz at io ns in co rp or at in g th e Treas ur y Bo ok le t whi ch

co nt ai ne d an arb it rat io n cl au se ; (2 ) Doc um en ts in th e “ Agr eem en ts /Do cu m en ta ti on ”

se ct io n in it s res po ns es to th e 20 02 an d 2 00 5 RFPs ; an d (3 ) Treas ur y Bo ok le ts th at
it co nt en de d wer e se nt wit h i ts res po ns es to th e 2 00 2 a nd 20 05 RFP. Ho wev er, t he

tri al co ur t fo un d as fact th at th e Treas ur y Bo ok le t was no t in cl ud ed in th es e two

su bm is si on s.56

“ W he n pa rti es to a co nt ract ha ve ex ecu te d a co m pl et el y in te gr at ed w r i t t en

ag reem en t, it su pe rs ed es al l ot he r un de rs ta nd in gs an d ag reem en ts wit h res pe ct to th e

su b ject m at te r of th e ag reem en t be twee n th e pa rti es , whe th er co ns is te nt or

in co ns is te nt

, an d is vi ewed as th e so le ex pr es si on of th e pa rti es ’ in te nt .” Mas ur ov sk y,

su pr a , 68 7 A.2d at 20 2 (ci ti ng How ar d Uni v. v. Goo d Foo d Se rv s., In c. , 60 8 A.2d 11 6,

12 6- 27 (D.C. 19 92 )) (o th er ci ta ti on om it te d)

. A pa rti al ly in te gr at ed ag reem en t is on e

“ whe re th e writ in g rep res en ts th e ag reem en t of th e pa rti es wit h res pe ct to th e m at te rs

st at ed th erei n, b ut th ere m ay be ad di ti on al co ns is te nt te rm s.” Id . (ci ti ng Goo d Fo od

Se rv s. , 60 8 A.2d at 12 6) ) (o th er ci ta ti on om it te d)

. W he th er an ag reem en t is co m pl et el y

or pa rti al ly in te gr at ed is a pr el im in ary qu es ti o n of fact fo r th e tri al co ur t. Id

. at 12 6

(ci ti ng Oze ro l v. How ar d Uni v. , 54 5 A.2d 63 8, 64 1 (D.C. 19 88 )). In m ak in g it s fact ua l

in qu iry, th e tri al co ur t m

us t co ns id er th e in te nt of th e pa rti es whe n th ey en te r e d t h e

ag re e men t a s de riv ed fro m “ th e co nd uc t an d la ng ua ge of th e pa rti es an d th e

su rro un di ng cir cu m st an ces .” Id

.

In th is cas e, be fo re de ci di ng th at th e pa rti es ’ 20 05 co nt ract ren de red in effe ct iv e

an y pr io r au th or iz at io ns or ag reem en ts fo r arb it rat io n a n d fo ru m se le ct io n, th e tri al

co ur t he ld an ev id en ti ary h eari ng , m ad e fact ua l fin di ng s, an d c o n s i d e r e d th e fact or s

es se nt ia l to it s de te rm in at io n as se t fo rth in ou r cas e la w. Se e, e.g

. , Goo d Foo d Se rv s.,57

su pr a , 60 8 A.2d at 12 6 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The tri al co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e “ pa rti es ’

writ te n co nt ract co nt ai ni ng a m erg er cl au se , th e co nd uc t of th e pa rti es an d th e

su rro un di ng ci rcu m st an ces , ev al ua te d as a who le

, weig h he av il y in fav or of th e 20 05

co nt ract ’s cat eg or iz at io n as a fu l l y i n t e g rat ed do cu m en t wit h res pe ct to di sp ut e

res ol ut io n an d au th or it y to m od ify.” Th e c ou rt al so st at ed th at ev en if th e 20 05

co nt ract co ul d be ch arac te riz ed as pa rti al ly in te gr at ed

, i t w o u l d su pe rs ed e an y

in co ns is te nt te rm s in pr io r ag reem en ts

. Se e id

. Howev er, th e tri al co ur t al so fo un d

th at th e pa rti es di d no t in te nd fo r th e 20 05 co nt ract to in va li da te do cu m en ts si gn ed by

O CFO an d OFT o ffi ci al s to th e ex te nt th at th ey al lo wed th e acco un t to rem ai n op e n

an d m ai nt ai ne d b y

au th or iz ed in di vi du al s.

The tri al co ur t’s ul ti m at e co nc lu si on th at th e 20 05 co nt ra c t i s a co m pl et el y

in te gr at ed do cu m en t wit h res pe ct to di sp ut e r e s ol ut io n an d au th or it y to m od ify is

su pp or te d by th e reco rd an d ap pl ic ab le la w. Fi rs t, th e 20 05 co nt ract co nt ai ns a m erg er

cl au se th at st at es , “ Thi s co nt ract

, in cl u d i n g sp eci fic al ly in co rp or at ed do cu m en ts

,

co ns ti tu te s th e to t a l an d en ti re ag reem en t be twee n th e pa rti es

. All pr ev io us

di sc us si on s, writ in gs , an d ag reem en ts are m erg ed he rei n.” The pr es en ce of a m erg er

cl au se , al th ou gh no t co nc lu si ve , is a si gn ifi can t fact or in di c a ti ng th at th e pa rti es

in te nd ed th e 20 05 co nt ract to be a co m pl et e ex pr es si on of th e te rms ag reed up on

.58

Goo d Foo d Se rv s., su

pr a , 60 8 A.2d at 12 7 (II Farn swo rth on Co nt ract s § 7.3

, at 20 4-

07 (1 99 0) ). Seco nd

, sp eci fic it em s or do cu m en ts in te nd ed to be in c l ud ed in th e

co nt ract are li st ed

. A li st in g of ex tri ns ic it em s th at fo rm a p a r t o f t he co nt ract is a

fact or te nd in g to su pp or t th e co nc lu si on th at a co nt ract is c o mp l e t el y in te gr at ed

.

Her cu le s & Co . v . S

ha ma Rest . C or

p ., 6 13 A.2d 91 6, 92 8 (D.C. 19 92 ) ( h o l d i n g th at

th is fact or , al on g wit h two m erg er cl au se s, es ta bl is he d “ be y on d pe rad ve nt ur e” th at th e

co nt ract was co m

pl et el y in te gr at ed ). The tri al co ur t fo un d th at th e TSB co nt ai ni ng an

arb it rat io n clau se , asi de fro m no t b ei ng en um erat ed as a co nt ract do cu m en t, was no t

in cl ud ed in th e Ban k’s res po ns e t o t h e 2 0 0 2 RFP or it s 20 05 be st an d fin al of fer. 4 1

Thi s fact ua l de te rm in at io n is su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce an d no t c l earl y erro ne ou s;

th eref or e, we acce pt it

. Se e Psa ro mat is v. Eng li sh Hol di ng s I, L.L.C.

, 94 4 A.2d 47 2,

48 1 (D.C. 20 08 ) (s et ti ng fo rth cl earl y erro ne ou s st an da rd fo r rev ie w of th e tri al co ur t’s

fact ua l fi nd in gs when si tt in g a s fa ct fin de r).

The tri al co ur t di d no t cred it th e te st im on y o f t h e B a nk ’s Sen io r Vice 4 1

Pres id en t Bi ach i th at he m ai le d th e TSB wit h th e 20 02 an d 2 0 0 5 r e s p o n s es to th e RFP. Se e La zo v. Uni te d St at es , 54 A.3d 12 21

, 12 30 (D.C. 20 12 ) (s ta t i n g t h at th is

co ur t wil l no t red et erm in e th e tri al co ur t’s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns whe re it ha d th e

op po rtu ni ty to ob se rv e th e wit ne ss ’ de m ean or ). Here, th e tri al co ur t al so fo un d th at

Mr. Bi ach i, who si gn ed th e co nt ract

, di d no t fo cu s on th e mer g e r c la us e, di sp ut e

res ol ut io n c la us e, arb it rat io n o r th e req ui rem en ts of t he PPA, no r di d he ev en kn ow th at th ere was an arb it rat io n pro vi si on in th e TSB. The tri al co ur t al so fo un d th at at

no ti m e di d th e pa rti es di sc us s di sp ut e res ol ut io n be fo re th e award of t h e 20 05

co nt ract

.59

Thi rd , th e tri al co ur t co ns id ered th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e m ak in g o f

th e co nt ract be fo re de te rm in in g th at it was fu ll y in te gr at ed

, sp eci fic al ly as to di sp ut e

res ol ut io n an d m od ifi cat io n au th or it y

. Se e Goo d Foo d Se rv s

. , su pr a , 60 8 A.2d at 12 6

(s et ti ng fo rth su rro un di ng ci rcu m st an ces as on e fo cu s of th e in qu iry in to whe th er th e

pa rti es in te nd ed an ag reem en t to be co m pl et el y in te gr at ed )

. Bri efl y st at ed

, th es e

ci rcu m st an ces in cl ud ed th e OCFO’s “ effo rt[ s] to as se rt co nt ro l ov er th e Dis tri ct ’s

f i na nc es , i nc lu di ng it s ba nk acco un ts ,” in pa rt, by i ss ui ng th e 20 02 RFP. The tri al 4 2

co ur t fo un d th at “ [a]n im po rta nt pa rt of th at en de av or was em po weri ng on ly on e

pe rs on to co nt ract ua ll y bi nd th e Dis tri ct

, an d ex cep t fo r cl ai m s un de r th e Fal se Cl ai m s

Act, es ta bl is hi ng on ly o ne m et h o d o f r es ol vi ng di sp ut es — th ro ug h th e Co nt ract in g

Offi cer.” To th is en d, th e RFP pr o v i d ed th at on ly th e Co nt ract in g Offi cer is

au th or iz ed to m ak e mo d i f i c a t i o ns or ch an ge s to th e te rm s an d co nd it io ns of th e

co nt ract

. The RFP fu rth er req ui red th at bi dd ers in cl ud e a di sp ut e res ol ut io n pr ov is io n

st at in g th at “ [i]f a di sp ut e ari se s un de r or rel at es to th e c o n t r act

, a cl ai m by th e

Co nt ract or sh al l be m ad e in writ in g an d s u b mi t t e d to th e Co nt ract in g Offi cer fo r a

writ te n de ci si on

. A Cl ai m by th e Dis t r i c t a g a i n s t th e Co nt ract or sh al l be su bjec t to

writ te n de ci si on by th e Co nt ract in g Offi cer.” Co nt ract cl au se s req ui red by th e RFP

al so in cl ud ed th e in co rp or at io n by refe ren ce of th e P P A an d ap pl ic ab le reg ul at io ns

The tri al co ur t fo un d th at th ere were 14 00 ba nk acco un ts whe n Dr. Gan dh i 4 2

was ap po in te d C FO in Ju ne 20 00

.60

an d th e la ws of th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m bi a. Exc ep t fo r frau d cl ai m s, th e PPA pr ov id ed

fo r on ly on e fo rm of di sp ut e res ol ut io n fo r co nt ract cl ai m s, i.e.

, th at th ey be res ol ve d

b y th e Co nt ract in g Offi cer. The PPA pr ov id es th at co nt ract in g of fic ers are “ no t

au th or iz e[d ] . . . t o se tt le , c om pr om is e, pa y , o r ot he rwis e ad jus t an y cl ai m in vo lv in g

f r a u d.” D.C. Co de § 2- 30 8.0 3 (a)( 4) (2 00 6 Rep l). It al so pr ov id es th at th e Dis tri c t

m ay br in g a ci vi l act io n in Su pe rio r Co ur t fo r frau d cl ai m s. D.C. Co de § 2-3 08 .14

. 4 3

The Dis tri ct is su ed an am en dm en t to th e RFP on Mar ch 31

, 20 05

, bu t th e te rm s

an d co nd it io ns rel at ed to di sp ut e res ol ut io n, co nt ract m od ifi cat io n, an d in co rp or at io n

of th e PPA an d ot he r la ws of th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m bi a rem ai ne d un ch an ge d. Co ns is te nt

wit h th e RFP’s req ui rem en ts

, th e 2 0 0 5 co nt ract ex ecu te d by th e pa rti es st at es in

Arti cl e I th at “ [t]he in te nt of th is co nt r a c t i s f o r a co nt ract or to m an ag e th e

di sb ur se m en t acco un t in acco rd an ce wit h th e pu bl is he d RFP.” The tri al co ur t fo un d 4 4

th at “ [s ]ign ifi can tl y , th e Treas ur y Bo ok le t was no t in cl ud e d a s pa rt of th e [Ban k’s]

20 02 RFP Res po ns e an d th e 20 05 [Bes t and Fi na l Offer] th at were in co rp or at ed in to

th e 20 05 Co nt ract th at Mr. Bi an ch i [th e Ban k’s Sen io r Vice Pres id en t] si gn ed .” Thi s

D.C. Cod e § 2-3 08 .14 is no w cod ifi ed at D.C. Co de § 2 -3 81 .02 (a). 4 3

Th e co nt ract in co rp or at ed th e fo ll owi ng do cu m en ts “ by or de r of 4 4

pr eced en ce: ” Arti cl es I th ro ug h V; C o n t ract or ’s Tech ni cal Pro po sa l an d Co st

Pro po sa l; Co nt ract or ’s Bes t an d Fi na l Offer da te d Apr il 25

, 20 05 ; an d th e Dis tri ct ’s

RFP.61

fact ua l fin di ng , whi ch is su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce, is no t ch al le ng ed

. Giv en th e

la ng ua ge in th e writ te n c o n t r a c t

, th e co nd uc t of th e pa rti es , an d th e su rro un di ng

ci rcu m st an ces as fo un d by t he tri al co ur t, we di sc ern no erro r in it s co nc lu si on s th at

ob jecti ve ly th e pa rti es in te nd ed th e 20 05 writ te n co nt ract to go ve rn th ei r rel at io ns hi p

rel at ed to th e CDA wit h res pe ct to di s p ut e res ol ut io n an d au th or it y to m od ify th e

ag reem en t an d th at an y pr io r in co ns is te nt pr ov i s i o n s on th es e su bjec ts were

su pe rs ed ed by th e 20 05 co nt ract

. “ Our juri sd ic ti on ad he res to an ob je c t i v e l a w of 4 5

co nt ract s, meani ng th at th e writ te n la ng ua ge em bo dyin g th e te rm s of an ag reem en t

wil l go ve rn th e rig ht s an d li ab il it ie s of th e pa rti es reg ard le ss of th e in te nt of th e pa rti es

at th e ti m e th ey en te red in to th e co nt ract [.]” Azi ken v. Dis tr ic t of Co lu mbi a , 70 A.3d

21 3, 2 18 -1 9 (D.C . 20 13 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The Ban k arg ue s th at th e tri al co ur t erre d by fai li ng to ha r mo n i z e t he di sp ut e

res ol ut io n pr ov is io ns of th e 20 05 co nt ract an d th e TSB ’s a r b it rat io n cl au se

. It

co nt en ds th at th e TSB an d Dep os it Agr eem en t op erat e ha rm on io us l y w i t h th e 20 05

co nt ract , and th eref

or e m us t b e co ns tru ed to ge th er as on e co nt ract . In in te rp ret in g a

Se e Goo d Foo d Se rv s., su pr a , 60 8 A.2d at 12 6- 27 (s et t i ng fo rth ba si s fo r 4 5

de te rm in in g th e pr el im in ary fact ua l is su e of whe th er th e pa rti es in te nd ed a writ in g to
be in te gr at ed ); se e al

so Oze ro l

, 54 5 A.2d at 64 1 (co nt ras ti ng co m pl et el y an d pa rti al ly

in te gr at ed ag reem en ts an d no ti ng th at th e la tt er m ay ha ve co ns is te nt

, as op po se d to
in co ns is te nt , add it io na l t erm s)

.62

c o nt ract , we co ns id er th e do cu m en t as who le “ so as to gi ve effe ct , i f po ss ib l e , t o a l l

of th e pr ov is io ns in th e co nt ract .” St eel e Fou nd

. In c. v. Cl ar k Co ns tr

. Grp

. , 93 7 A.2d

14 8, 15 4 (D.C. 20 07 ) (ci ti ng Aka ss y, su pr a , 89 1 A.2d at 30 3)

. Co nt rary to th e Ban k’s

arg um en t, th e di sp ut e res ol ut io n m ech an is m ag reed up on in th e 20 05 co nt ract an d th e

pr io r arb it rat io n an d fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se s up on whi ch it rel ie s can no t be reco nc il ed

or ha rm on iz ed

. As th e tri al co ur t co nc lu de d, th e m ech an is m s fo r di sp ut e res ol ut io n 4 6

ag reed up on in th e 20 05 writ te n co nt ract are in co ns is te nt wit h an y pr io r arb it rat io n an d

fo ru m se l ect io n pr ov is io ns cal li ng fo r arb it rat io n in Nor th Caro li na th at th e Ban k

co nt en ds were ag reed up on pr io r th eret o. The pr ov is io ns i n th e 20 05 co nt ract

,

so li ci te d

, ne go ti at ed

, an d ag reed up on in writ in g, pr ov id e th at : (1 ) ex cep t fo r frau d

cl ai m s, cl a i ms r e la te d to th e pa rti es ’ co nt ract wil l be de ci de d by th e Co nt ract in g

Offi cer an d Co nt ract App eal s Bo ard ; an d ( 2 ) f r a u d cl ai m s can be pu rs ue d in a ci vi l

Ban k Ju li us Bae r & Co

. v. W ax fi el d Lt d.

, 42 4 F.3 d 27 8 (2 d Ci r.), up on whi ch 4 6

th e Ban k rel ie s, i s d i s t i n gu is ha bl e. In th at cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at

m erg er an d f

o r u m s e l ect io n cl au se s in a se rie s of su bs eq ue nt ly ex ecu te d Pl ed ge Agr eem en ts s u p e r s e d e d a pr io r ag reem en t to arb it rat e di sp ut es

. Id

. at 28 0. The

Pl ed ge Agr eem en ts ha d a cl au se pr ov id in g th at “ al l rig ht s an d rem ed ie s pr ov id ed in

th is Agr eem en t are cu m

ul at iv e an d no t e x c l u s i v e of an y pr ov id ed un de r an y ot he r

ag reem en t or by la w or in eq ui ty.” Id

. at 28 2. The ci rcu it co ur t st at ed th at in li gh t of

th is cl au se , i t w o u ld m ak e li tt le se ns e to read th e m erg er cl au se to de st ro y pr io r

co nt ract rel at io ns hi ps

. Id

. at 28 3. Co ns is te nt wit h New Yor k la w, th e co ur t “ read th e

m erg er cl au se as pr ov id in g th at th e Pl ed ge A g r eem en ts su pe rs ed e an y pr ev io us

ag reem en ts on ly to th e ex te nt th at th ey co nf li ct

. Id

. In th e cas e be fo re th is co ur t, we ha ve no si m il ar no n- ex cl us iv e rem ed ie s pr ov is io n, an d th e te rm s of th e di s p u t e

res ol ut io n p ro vi si on s i n t he writ te n c on tra ct an d p rio r do cu m en ts co nf li ct

.63

act io n in co ur t by th e Att or ne y Gen eral as st at ed in th e PPA, whi ch was in co rp or at ed

by refe ren ce. The se pr ov is io ns are en ti rel y in co ns is te nt wit h an y pr io r ag reem en ts to

arb it rat e cl ai m s in Nor th C a ro li na or el se whe re. Eve n if th e 20 05 ag reem en t is

ch arac te riz ed as on ly pa rti al ly in te gr at ed

, pr io r in co ns is te nt te rm s wit h res pe ct to th e

m at te rs st at ed th erei n we re sup ers ed ed by th e 20 05 co nt ract

, an d th eref or e, th ey can no t

co nt ro l. Se e Mas ur ov sk

y, su pr a no te 11

, 68 7 A.2d at 20 2 (ci ti ng Goo d Foo d, su pr a ,

60 8 A.2d at 12 6) (o th er ci ta ti on om i t t e d )

. To th e ex te nt th at pr ov is io ns fo r di sp ut e

res ol ut io n a n d f

o r um se le ct io n are refe ren ced on ba nk si gn at ur e card s an d

a ut ho riz at io ns pr e-d at in g th e pa rti es ’ 20 05 co nt ract

, fo r th e fo reg oi ng rea s o n s , w e

ag ree wit h th e tri al co ur t t ha t t he y were s up ers ed ed by the 20 05 co nt ract an d can no t

be ha rm on iz ed wit h i t.

b. Eff ect of Su bs eq ue nt ly Execu te d Do cu men ts on th e 2 00 5 C on tr ac t

Alt ern at iv el y , th e Ban k arg ue s t h a t TSB an d Dep os it Agr eem en ts si gn ed by

OFT of fic ia ls aft er th e 20 05 co nt ract was en te red co nt ro l. It co n t e n d s th at fo r 4 7

The Ban k rel ie s on th e 20 06 Aut ho riz at io n ag reei ng to be bo un d by th e TSB, 4 7

si gn ed by Dep ut y Ch ie f Fi na nc ia l Offi cer, Lasa na Mac k, pu r s u a n t to au th or it y

pr ov id ed by th e 20 00 Co rp or at e Res ol ut io n, an d si gn at ur e card s si gn ed in 20 06

. The

TSB pr ov id es fo r arb i tra ti on in th e Uni te d St at es , an d th e Dep os it Agr eem en ts

pr ov id e fo r act io ns or pr oc eed in gs in vo lv in g th e acco un t to be m ai nt a i n e d i n t he (co nt in ue d...)64

pa rti al ly in te gr at ed co nt ract s, th e m os t rece nt writ in g co nt ro ls or th at th e 20 05 co nt ract

co ul d be s u p p l e men te d or m od ifi ed by do cu m en ts ex ecu te d th erea fte r. The Ban k

ta ke s th e po si ti on th at OFT of fic ia ls ret ai ne d in de pe nd en t co nt ract in g au th or it y un de r

th e 20 00 Co rp or at e Res ol ut io n an d th at by si gn in g si gn at ur e card s an d Aut ho riz at io ns ,

OFT em pl oyees bo un d th e Dis tri ct to th e Dep os it Agr eem en t’s fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se

an d th e Treas ur y Bo ok le t’s arb it rat io n cl au se

. The Ban k arg ue s th at th es e do cu m en ts

ei th er rei ns ta te d th e te rm s of th e TSB an d Dep os it Agr eem en t or m od ifi ed

,

su pp le m en t e d

, a n d a m en de d th e te rm s of th e 20 05 Co nt ract to in cl ud e th em

. The 4 8

tri al co ur t he ld th at aft er ex ecu ti on of th e 20 05 co nt ract

, whi ch was ex te nd ed each y ear

up to Nov em

be r 20 09

, OFT of

fic ia ls “ pl ai nl y la ck ed th e au th or it y to bi nd th e Dis tri ct

to th e di sp ut e res ol ut io n cl au se s in ei th er th e 20 04 Treas ur y B o o k l e t or th e 20 08

Dep os it Agre em en t.”

The re are at le as t two m ajor im pe di m en ts to th e Ban k’s su gg es te d res ul t on th is

is su e. Fi rs t, th e RFP an d th e 20 05 co nt ract pr ov id ed th at th e Co nt ract in g Offi cer was

(...co nt in ue d) 4 7

Ban ki ng Cen te r m ai nt ai ni ng th e acc ou nt , in th is cas e Nor th Caro li na

.

The Dis tri ct s u g g e st ed th at th is co ur t ne ed no t co ns id er whe th er OFT 4 8

em pl oyees ret ai ne d co nt ract in g au th or i t y a f t er th e 20 05 co nt ract was ex ecu te d

be cau se it di d no t un de rs ta nd th e Ban k’s arg um en t to be th at su bs eq ue nt ag reem en ts
al t ered or m od ifi ed th e te rm s of th e ex is ti ng co nt ract

. In it s Rep ly Bri ef, th e Ban k

cl ari fie d i ts po si ti on to st at e o th erwi se

.65

th e “ on ly of

fic ia l au th or iz ed to co nt ract ua ll y bi nd th e Dis tri ct .” Even ass um in g th at

OFT of fic ia ls ret ai ne d so m e au th or it y rel at ed to ba nk in g se rv ic es aft er th e ex ecu ti on

of th e 20 05 co nt ract

, th e Ban k, as a pa rty to th at co nt ract

, kn ew th at on ly th e

Co nt ract in g Offi cer ha d au th or it y to ag ree on be ha lf of th e Dis tri ct to m od ify or va ry

it s te rm s. Eve n ab se nt act ua l kn owl ed ge of th e li m it at io ns on a go ve rn m en t ag en t’s

au th or it y , as ex is te d he re, “ on e who co nt ract s w i t h a go ve rn m en t ag en t is

co ns tru ct iv el y no ti fie d of th e li m it s of th at ag en t’s au th or it y , an d an y r e l i a n c e on

co nt rary rep res en ta ti on s can no t be reas on ab le .” W il li ams v. Dis tr ic t of Co lu mbi a , 90 2

A.2d 91

, 96 (D.C. 20 06 ) (ci ti ng Leo na rd v. D i s t r i c t o f Co lu mbi a , 80 1 A.2d 82

, 86

(D.C. 20 02 ) an d Gr e e n e

, s u p r a , 80 6 A.2d at 22 2 n.7 (“ pe rs on s de al in g wit h a

m un ic ip al co rp or at io n th ro ug h it s ag en t are bo un d to kn ow th e na tu re an d ex te nt of th e

ag en t’s au th or it y ”) (q uo ti ng Co ff in

, su pr a , 32 0 A.2d at 30 3) ) (o th er ci ta ti on s om it te d)

.

Pu t an ot he r way , th e Ban k kn ew th at wha te ve r au th or it y ot he r of fic ia ls ha d to si gn

ba nk do cu m en ts on be ha lf of th e Dis tri ct

, th at au th or it y di d no t in cl ud e m od ifi cat io n

of th e pa rti es ’ 2 0 0 5 c o n t ract

. The refo re, th e Ban k co ul d no t bi nd th e Dis tri ct to a

m od ifi cat io n of th e di sp ut e res ol ut io n pr ov is io ns in th e 20 05 co nt ract si m pl y be cau se

of fic ia ls

, ot he r th an th e au th or iz ed Co n t r a c t i n g Offi cer, si gn ed fo rm ba nk si gn at ur e

card s an d/ or de po si t ag reem en ts wit h pr in te d la ng ua ge pu rp or ti ng to im po se di ffer en t

arb it rat io n an d fo ru m se le ct io n req ui rem en ts

. The tri al co ur t found tha t th e in di vi du al s66

who si gn ed th es e card s fo r th e Dis tri ct were un aware th at th e fin e pr in t ha d arb it rat io n

an d foru m se le ct io n term s. Acco rd in g to th e te st im on y an d tri al co ur t fin di ng s, the y

si gn ed th e do cu m en ts on ly fo r th e p ur po se of ad di ng or ch an gi ng si gn at or ie s on th e

acco un ts wit ho ut no ti ng th e fin e pr in t. Non e of th em in te nd ed to effe ct a m od ifi cat io n

of th e 20 05 co nt ract

. Of co ur se , “ [a] pe rs on who si gn s a co nt ract aft er ha vi ng ha d an

op po rtu ni ty to read an d un de rs ta nd i t i s b ou nd by it s pr ov is io ns .” In te rd on at o v.

In te rd on at o , 52 1 A.2d 11 24

, 11 33 (D.C. 19 87 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d )

. Howev er, th at is

no t th e is su e he re. The de te rm in at iv e is su e in th i s c a se is whe th er th e pe rs on who

si gn ed th e do cu m en t ha d au th or it y to bi nd th e Dis tri ct go ve rn m en t to a m od ifi cat io n

of th e 2 0 0 5 c o nt ract

. Und er th e te rm s of th at co nt ract , o nl y th e Co nt ract in g Offi cer

ha d t ha t au th or it y

.

Seco nd

, th e 20 05 co nt ract was ex te nd ed fo ur ti m es aft er it s i n i t i al ex ecu ti on ,

fin al ly in Nov em

be r 20 08 an d e xp iri ng “ on Nov em be r 12 , 20 09 or t he da te an y ne w

co nt ract was ex ecu te d, whi ch ev er cam e fir st .” Thi s co nt ract ’s e s s e n t ia l te rm s

co nc ern in g di sp ut e res ol ut io n, in co rp or at io n of th e PPA, an d co nt rac t mo d i fic at io n

rem ai ne d un ch a n g e d th ro ug ho ut th is pe rio d. The refo re, to th e ex te nt th at th e Ban k

arg ue s th at th e la st ex ecu te d do cu m en t co nt ro ls

, th at wou ld be th e 20 05 co nt ract th at

was ex te nd ed each y e a r t h ro ug h Nov em be r 20 09

. The refo re, un de r th e Ban k’s67

m od ifi cat io n an al y si s, th is co nt ract wou ld ha ve co nt in ue d to go ve rn di sp ut e re so lu ti on

an d c on tra ct m od ifi cat io n.

C. Ch al le ng e to th e CAB’s Ju ri sd ic ti on Over th e Cl ai ms As se rt ed

Fi na ll y , th e Ban k arg ue s th at th ere is no co nf li ct be twee n th e di sp ut e res ol ut io n

pr ov is io ns in th e 2 0 05 co nt ract an d th e arb it rat io n pr ov is io n it se ek s to en fo rce

be cau se th e Dis tri ct ’s cl ai m s are no t su bjec t to th e juri sd ic ti on of th e Co nt ract in g

Offi cer or CAB. It co nt en ds th at th e Dis tri ct ’s cl ai m s are ei th er st at ut or y or to rt cl ai m s

whi ch th e Co nt ract in g Offi cer an d CAB ha ve no au th or it y to res ol ve

. The Dis tri ct

vi ews th e Ban k’s argu m en t as its reco gn it io n th at by in co rp or at in g th e PPA int o th e

co nt ract , t he pa rti es ag reed th at th e Co nt ract i n g Offi cer wou ld he ar co nt ract cl ai m s,

an d th e Att or ne y Gen eral fo r th e Dis tri ct co ul d br in g an FCA cl ai m in Su pe rio r Co ur t.

At th e sa m e ti m e, th e Dis t r i ct ag rees wit h th e Ban k th at it s cl ai m s do no t fal l wit hi n

th e pr ov is io n of th e 20 05 co nt ract requ iri ng th at th e co nt ract in g of fic er de ci de di sp ut es

rel at ed to th e co nt ract

. It con te nd s th at it s st at ut or y an d to rt cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e Ban k

do no t tu rn on th e co nt ract ua l rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e pa rti es an d th at th ey co ul d ha ve

be en as se rte d ag ai ns t an y ba nk th at ne go ti at ed th e frau du le nt ch eck s. The refo re, the

Dis tri ct co nc ed es th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in ho ld in g th at th e Dis tri ct ’s cl ai m s rel at ed68

to th e co nt ract

, bu t ta k e s t h e p o si ti on th at th e cl ai m s sh ou ld ha ve be en res ol ve d in

Su pe rio r Co ur t.

U n d er th e PPA, “ [a]ll cl ai m s by th e Dis tri ct go ve rn m en t ag ai ns t a co nt r a c t o r

ari si ng un de r or rel at in g to a co nt ract sh al l be de ci de d by th e co nt ract in g of fic er who

s h a l l i s s u e a de ci si on in writ in g.

. . .” D.C. Co de § 2- 30 8.0 3 (a)( 1) (2 00 1)

. The

Co nt ract App eal s B o a r d h a d ju ris di ct io n of “ [a]ny cl ai m by th e Dis tri ct ag ai ns t a

co nt ract or , whe n su ch cl ai m ari se s un de r or rel at e s t o a co nt ract .” D.C. Co de § 2-

3 0 9

. 0 3 (a)( 3) (2 00 1)

. The st at ut e li m it s th is juri sd ic ti on by pr ov id in g th at th e

co nt ract in g o ffi cer is no t aut ho riz ed “ to se tt le

, co m pr om is e, pa y , or ot he rwis e ad jus t

an y cl ai m in vo lv in g frau d.” D.C. Co de § 30 8.0 3 (a)( 4) (2 00 1)

. The PPA pr ov id es th at

th e Dis tri ct m ay br in g a ci vi l act io n to reco ve r da m ag es or pe na lt ie s ag ai ns t an y pe rs on

who co m m it s s pe ci fie d fr au du le nt act s. D.C. Co de § 2 -3 08 .14 (a)(1 )-(9 ).

A cl ai m ari se s un de r a co nt ract “ (1 ) whe re th e cl ai m ul ti m at el y de pe nd [s ] on th e

ex is te nc e of a co nt ract ua l rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e pa rti es ; (2 ) res ol ution of th e cl ai m []

rel at es to in te rp ret at io n of th e co nt ract ; or (3 ) [a] co nt ract -rel at ed to rt cl ai m in vo lv e[s ]

th e sa m e op erat iv e fact s as a pa ral le l cl ai m fo r br each of co n t r act .” Ch en ey v. IPD

Ana ly ti cs

, LLC

, 58 3 F. Su pp

. 2d 10 8, 12 2 (D.D.C. 20 08 ) (al te rat i o n i n o r i gi na l)69

(q uo ti ng Ter ra In t’l

, In c. v. Mis si ss ip

pi Ch em. Co rp

. , 11 9 F

. 3 d 6 8 8

, 69 4 (8 th Ci r.

19 97 )) (in t e r n al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The re m us t be a “ cau sa l co nn ect io n

be twee n th e cl ai m an d th e co nt ract ba se d on rig ht s, du ti es , or in jury flo win g fro m th e

co nt ract .” Id

. at 12 2 (q uo ti ng Phi ll ip s v. Aud io Acti ve, Lt d.

, 49 4 F.3 d 37 8, 38 9 (2 d Ci r.

20 07 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The st at ut e do es no t de fin e “ rel at ed to ” th e

co nt ract or di st in gu is h b e t w een th e ph ras es “ ari si ng un de r” an d “ rel at ed to ” th e

co nt ract

. The de fin it io n o f “ rel at ed to ” is si m pl y “ as so ci at ed wit h” or “ co nn ect ed

to .” The re m

us t be so m e ne xu s be twee n th e co nt ract an d th e cl ai m as se rte d su ch th at 4 9

rel ia nc e o n t he co nt ract in g o ffi cer’s ex pe rti se pro m ot es a jus t re so lu ti on

.

It is no t c l e a r o n th is reco rd th at th e Dis tri ct ’s cl ai m s ari se un de r th e pa rti es ’

co nt ract ba se d on th e de fin it io n e xt ract ed fro m Ch en ey, s up ra , 58 3 F . Sup p. at 12 2.

The Dis tri ct su ed th e Ban k for vi ol at io n of th e Uni fo rm Co m m erci al Co de (Co un ts I

an d II), Neg li ge nc e (Co un t III), Frau d (Co un t IV), Neg li ge nt an d In te nt io na l Breach

of Fi du ci ary Dut ie s (Co un t V), Co nv ers io n (Co un t VI), Fal se Cl ai m s Act vi ol at io ns

(Co un t VII), an d Fai lu re to Ade qu at el y H i r e , Tr a i n or Su pe rv is e (Co un t VIII).

5 0

Th e Ameri ca n Her it ag e Dict io na ry of th e Eng li sh La ng ua ge , 10 97 (Will ia m 4 9

Mo rri s, ed . 19 69 ).

In Co un t VII of it s fir st am en de d co m pl ai nt

, th e Dis tri c t a d o p t e d an d 5 0

in co rp or at ed th e fact ua l al le ga ti on s se t fo rt h in the pr eced in g ei gh t co un ts (p arag rap hs (co nt in ue d...)70

Res ol ut io n o f no ne of t he cla im s ap pe ar t o c on cern an in te rp ret at io n of th e co nt ract

,

an d th ere is no pa ral le l br each of co nt ract cl ai m

. To so m e ex te nt

, so m e of th e cl ai m s

m ay de pe nd up on th e ex is te nc e of a co nt ract ua l rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e pa rti es

. Se e

Ch en ey, su

pr a , 58 3 F. Su pp

. at 12 2. Oth ers m ay no t. Nor do al l of th e cl ai m s ap pe ar

on th e face of th e co m

pl ai nt to be co nn ect ed to th e c o nt ract it se lf or req ui re th e

ex pe rti se of a co nt ract in g of fic er fo r jus t res ol ut io n. Fu rth er in qu iry by th e tri al co ur t

ap pe ars to be ne ces sa ry

to m ak e th at de te rm in at io n.

Thi s co ur t ha s he ld th at th e CAB do e s n o t ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er a cl ai m fo r

pr of es si on al ne gl ig en ce, reco gn iz in g th e CAB’s po si ti on wit h res pe ct to it s own

juri sd ic ti on

. Dis tr ic t of Co lu mbi a W at er an d Se wer v. Delo n Hamp to n & Ass oc s. , 85 1

A.2d 41 0, 41 7 n.1 6 (D.C. 20 04 ) (ci ti ng Geo rg e A. Bas s Co ns tr

. Co

. , CAB No. D-8 69

(J un e 1 0, 1 99 1) ). In p art ic ul ar, t hi s co ur t no te d th at th e CAB h ad st at ed th at “ ‘any 5 1

(...co nt in ue d) 5 0

1
- 11 7) of it s co m

pl ai nt as th e ba si s fo r it s Fal se Act Cl ai m s un de r D.C. C od e § 2-

30 8.1 4 (a), su bs ect io ns (2 ) (k no win gl y m ak [in g], us [in g] or cau s[ in g] to be m ad e or

us ed

, a fal se reco rd or st at e m en t to ge t a fal se cl ai m pa id or ap pr ov ed by th e Dis tri ct ”), (3 ) (“ co ns pi r[i ng ] to de frau d th e Dis tri ct by ge tt in g a fal se cl ai m al lo wed

or pa id by th e Dis tri ct ”), (8 ) (fai li ng to d i s c lo se aft er di sc ov ery a fal se cl ai m to th e Dis tri ct rece iv ed as an in ad ve rte nt pa y m en t or ov erp aymen t ), an d (9 ) (k no win gl y fai li ng to rep ay

an in ad ve rte nt pa y m en t o r ov erp ay m en t t o t he Dis tri ct ).

In Delo n Hamp to n , an is su e un de r co ns id erat io n was whe th er th e tri al co ur t 5 1

ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in no t refe rri n g cl ai m s fo r br each of co nt ract an d pr of es si on al

ne gl ig en ce fo r ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed y un de r th e do ct rin e of pr im ary juri sd ic ti on

. 85 1 (co nt in ue d...)71

act io n ba se d on ne gl ig en ce li es no t be fo re th e Bo ard bu t in Su pe rio r Co ur t.’” Id

.

( q u ot in g Bas s Co ns tr

. Co

. ). Mo re rece nt ly, th e CAB ha s ex pl ai ne d th at i t may

ex erci se juri sd ic ti on ov er cl ai m s th at act ua ll y are fo r de fect iv e co nt ract pe rfo rm an ce,

al th ou gh as se rte d in th e la ng ua ge fo r to rt act io ns

. I n r e C hi ef Pro cu re men t Off

ic er

( G TE So ut h, In c. ), 20 02 DCBCA LEXIS 23

, at *3 -4 n.2

. Alt ho ug h t h e C A B

di sm is se d t he to rt cl ai m s i n GTE So ut h be cau se it s ju ris di ct io n i s l im it ed to co nt ract

act io ns , it ex pl ai ne d ci rcu m st an ces un de r whi ch it ha d co ns id ered cas es a s s e r t e d as

to rts , bu t t ha t wer e act ua ll y co nt ract cla im s. Sp eci fic al ly, th e CAB s ta te d:

Alt ho u gh

, at ti m es , th e Bo ard ex erci se s juri sd ic ti on ov er cl ai m s whi ch are fram ed in th e la ng ua ge of to rt act io ns , th os e cas es de al wit h co nt ract pe rfo rm an ce, no t to rts

un rel at ed to pe r f

o r man ce. Fo r ex am

pl e, refe ren ces to

“ ne gli ge nc e” an d “ pr of

essi on al m al pr act ice ” in pe rf or m an ce of a co nt ract , alt ho ug h s ou nd in g l ik e a t or t, d o n ot co nv ert
in to a to rt wha t is in es se nc e a cl ai m fo r de fect iv e

pe rfo rm an ce. Se e, e.g

. , Fry & W el ch Ass oc ia te s, P.C.

, CAB

No. D-0 82 1, J ul y

31 19 97 , 44 D.C. 68 59 , 68 75

.

GTE So ut h

, 20 02 DCBCA LEXIS 23 at *3 -4 n.2

. W he th er th e D is tri ct ’s cl ai m fo r

(...co nt in ue d) 5 1

A.2d at 41 6- 17 . The t ria l co ur t re jecte d t he arg um en t b ecau se th e CAB wo ul d h av e de cl in ed to pr ov id e an ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed y , an d th e do ct rin e of pr im ary juri sd icti on do es no t ap pl y

wher e n o a dm in is tra ti ve rem ed y ex is ts

. Id

. at 4 17 & n .41 7 n .16

.72

ne gl ig en ce (Cou nt III) i s i n e ss en ce a c la im for de fect iv e p erfo rm an ce rem ai ns to be

de te rm in ed aft er fu rth er i nq ui ry by the tri al co ur t.

On th e o t h e r ha nd

, m os t of th e Dis tri ct ’s cl ai m s ap pe ar to in vo lv e frau d

pe rp et rat ed by th e Dis tri ct ’s fo rm er em pl oyees an d al le ge dl y faci li ta te d by th e Ban k.

To th e ex te nt th at th es e cl ai m s in vo lv e frau d, th ey are pr op erl y pu rs ue d in co ur t, gi ve n

th e PPA’s pr oh ib it io n aga in st co nt ract in g offi cers pa y in g, com pr om is in g, se tt li ng or

ot he rwis e ad

ju s t in g an y cl ai m in vo lv in g frau d, se e D.C. Co de § 30 8.0 3 (a)( 4)

, an d

au th or iz at io n fo r th e Dis tri ct to su e p e r so ns co m m it ti ng cert ai n frau du le nt act s in

Su pe rio r Co ur t fo r da m ag es

. Se e D.C. Co de § 2- 30 8.1 4 (a)( 1)

. In te rp ret in g a si m il ar

fed eral st at ut e, 41 U .S.C. 60 5( a), nu m ero us di st ric t co ur ts ha ve he ld th at th e

Gov ern m en t can su e in di st ric t co ur t whe ne ve r frau d is at is su e ev en if th e cl ai m it se lf

is no t f o r frau d. Uni te d St at es v. Men omi ne e Tr ib al Ent er pr is es , 60 1 F. Su pp

. 2d

10 61

, 10 78 (E.D. W is

. 20 09 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Uni fi ed In du st ri es , 92 9 F. Su pp

.

94 7, 95 0- 51 (E.D. Va. 19 96 ); Uni te d St at es v. Roc kw e l l I n t ’l Co rp

. , 79 5 F. Su pp

.

11 31

, 11 35 (N.D. Ga. 19 92 )). Si m il arl y , th e pr ov is io n of th e PPA le nd s it se lf to th at

sa m e in te rp ret at io n.

In su m m ary, we co nc lu de th at th e Dis tri ct ’s cl ai m s in th e rem ai ni ng s e v e n

co un ts m ay no t be di sm is se d in fav or of juri sd ic ti on be fo re th e co nt ract in g of fic er an d73

th e CAB wit ho ut a de te rm in at io n of whe th er th os e cl ai m s can be pr op erl y pu rs ue d in

th at fo ru m or are pr op erl y be fo re th e Su pe rio r Co ur t. Tha t de te rm in a t i o n m us t be

m ad e on th e ba si s of the na tu re of th e cl ai m , rat he r th an it s ti tl e. Co ns is te nt wit h th e

pr in ci pl es se t fo rth in th is se ct io n, th e tri al co ur t m us t m ak e t ha t de te rm in at io n wit h

res pe ct to each co un t.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e tri al co ur t’s de ci si on in so far as it ho ld s

th at th e pa rti es ha d no ag reem en t to arb it rat e di sp ut es in Nor th Caro li na

. W e rem an d

th e cas e to th e tri al co ur t wit h in st r u c t i o n s to de te rm in e, ba se d on th e pr in ci pl es

en un ci at ed in th is op in io n, whi ch co un ts

, if an y , sh ou ld rem ai n fo r di sp os it io n in th e

Su pe rio r Co ur t as cl a i ms i n vo lv in g frau d or as cl ai m s no t ot he rwis e wit hi n th e

juri sd ic ti on of t he Co nt ract App eal s B oa rd

.

So or de re d

.